Did Adam have to choose between two sins?

We continue our comments on the manuscript sent to us from a Mormon.(*)

In the following lines, Stephen Douglas declares some interesting and childish doctrines of the Mormon cult, so they don’t deserve each an article. I take his statements each one apart and I comment on them.

Stephen said:

Speaking of side notes,

Just look how long his “side-notes” are and how full they are with erroneous doctrines… And he still complains that we are replying to each point in his introduction… N.B.: This whole part is still in his introduction, and we have not commented on the passages where he says nothing of such an importance that needs to call our attention and comments.

~

Stephen said:

I wish to mention an issue into which I do not wish to delve too deeply.

In fact, all the doctrines of Mormonism must be accepted without a deep study, or else no one would accept them…

~

Stephen said:

Just as with the JWs, most ECs look at Adam with disdain, he having created this terrible situation in which we find ourselves—mortality.

Humans can’t create anything. Only God is the Creator. Besides, death is not something created, but it is the result of sin. So I would advise you to make a good choice of your words, as Mormons usually change the meanings of words as they wish, and thus they fall in doctrinal errors because of misunderstandings.

On the other hand, true Christians do not look with disdain to Adam as a person, for he is our first parent. Adam received the sign of the Atonement of Christ from the hands of God: “And Jehovah Elohim made Adam and his wife coats of skin, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21) This was the symbol of Christ’s Righteousness with which we are clothed. Naturally, man prefers to accuse others for his sins, and many people prefer to accuse Adam, just as you see Stephen Douglas accusing Adam for our mortality. In fact, although sin entered through Adam and with sin death, but we all die because we all have sinned! Read with me:

“For this [cause], even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12)

All have sinned!! This is what Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not understanding, and therefore they do not believe that we have received the sinful nature from Adam and thus we are unable to please God in the flesh, in this old nature of Adam. For this reason also they cannot understand how true believers in Christ will never die. Jesus said:

“and every one who lives and believes on me shall never die.” (John 11:26)

~

Stephen continues:

Pastor Frederick K. C. Price even called Adam, “That fool!” in one of his televised sermons.

Frederick K. C. Price is a heretic who follows the doctrines of the Word-Faith Movement. This movement has doctrines that are very similar to the doctrines of Mormons, so we are not surprised to hear that he may have said such a wrong thing. And yet, we need to see the context of his expression to be fair. To get some idea about what this heresy called “Word-Faith Movement” teaches, you can see our articles in the section: Charismatics, Pentecostals, and Word-Faith Movement.

But the sole fact that Stephen quoted this heretic and considered him an “Evangelical Christian” shows that he doesn’t know what “evangelical Christian” means. We have explained these things in our article: Mormons confess that they are NOT evangelical Christians.

~

Stephen continues:

Because we believe Adam had to break one of God’s two commandments—to not partake of the forbidden fruit and to reproduce—while in the Garden to fulfill the other, many ECs claim, just as do the JWs, we must therefore believe “Original Sin” involved sexual intercourse.  This is not only not a reasonable conclusion, it is an ignorant presumption given without any forethought of its unfeasibility as anyone’s doctrine.

So you read how Stephen confessed that Mormons believe that Adam had to break one of God’s commandments… And after stating this very big erroneous teaching, all what he does is to raise a non-issue about the original sin that he puts in quotation marks, thus confessing that Mormons do not believe that we received the sinful nature (the sinful flesh) from Adam. As we all sin and are slaves to sin, so I would like to see how Stephen explains this fact without the original sin. Besides, instead of raising a non-issue, I would like to see how Stephen justifies the Mormon accusations against God! They accuse God of putting Adam and Eve in a situation in which they were obliged to break one of His commandments! This is equal to say that God obliged man to sin! May it never be!

Let me just note that the original sin has nothing to do with the sexual relation of Adam with Eve. God created us male and female, and sexual relations were never a sin within marriage. Adam and Eve didn’t need to break any commandment of God in order to be fruitful and fill the earth as God commanded (cf. Genesis 1:28); they could have sexual relations as husband and wife within marriage, without having to break any commandment, and their sexual relations were pure within marriage. The Bible clearly says:

“[Let] marriage [be held] every way in honour, and the bed [be] undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers will God judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

The marriage bed should be kept undefiled, as it is pure.

~

Stephen goes on in the childish doctrines with which his Mormon teachers have deceived him so much that he became ridiculous. Read:

First, we do not consider Adam’s transgression a “sin.”  Sin requires knowledge an action taken is wrong.  In their state of innocence, Adam and Eve did not have an understanding of “good and evil” until they partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with the freedom to choose, and it has nothing to do with the knowledge of Adam that eating from that tree was wrong. Let me take each of these points:

1. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with the freedom to choose: This is evident, as you don’t need to be neutral in order to choose. Adam and Eve were created good, so they didn’t need to be outside of good and outside of evil in order to choose to obey God or in order to have the ability to disobey and thus choose evil. You don’t need to lose all your money in order to be able to choose to keep it. This is simple logic. You can just choose to keep your money while it is still with you. In the same way, Adam and Eve could very simply choose to keep their innocence, and they didn’t need to lose it in order to choose to keep it. You see of course the wrong logic of Stephen that has no basis in the Word of God. The knowledge of good and evil means to be independent and neutral, i.e. independent from good and evil as such.

2. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with the knowledge of Adam that eating from that tree was wrong: This is evident, as you don’t need to experience the result of falling from the 10th floor of a building in order to know that you will die if you do. How do you know that you will die? Because you believe what the human experience tells you about men who fell and died, and you believe science that explains why you will die if you fall. In the same way, Adam didn’t need to experimentally know evil in order to avoid it, as God told him: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.” (Genesis 2:17) All what Adam had to do was to believe what God said about that tree, just as you believe human experience and human science concerning the falling from the 10th floor.

So Adam knew the action taken was wrong. God told him very clearly that it is wrong. So when he disobeyed, he sinned. In fact, although you put a distinction between a transgression and a sin, and yet God says that sin is the transgression of His commandments: “Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4) When you break the Law, i.e. the commandments of God, you sin.

~

Stephen continues the ridiculous comments:

While in the Garden, Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until they had taken of the fruit, let alone how to engage in sexual relations.

How ridiculous this man has become… You see how cults enslave your mind and make you believe many ridiculous things, as they suppress the use of common sense…

Now, look how Stephen puts a relation between the knowledge of nakedness and the knowledge about how to engage in sexual relations… Do you see any relation between the two? I don’t see any relation. And the Bible doesn’t put any relation at all!! On the contrary, the Bible clearly tells us that sexual intercourse is possible without the knowledge that we are naked. You ask me how the Bible says this? Very simple; read with me:

“And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living soul that moves with which the waters swarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth. And there was evening, and there was morning — a fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after their kind. And it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind. And God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:20-25)

“Bring forth with thee every animal which is with thee, of all flesh, fowl as well as cattle, and all the creeping things which creep on the earth, that they may swarm on the earth, and may be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” (Genesis 8:17)

The same “commandment” that Stephen puts as an obstacle before the commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree is given to the animals and the fish and the birds: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth”… I would like to hear the explanation of Stephen: How could those animals have sexual intercourse as long as they didn’t eat from the forbidden tree and didn’t “know” that they were naked?…

In fact, the feeling of nakedness originally was not related with the sexual intercourse. When sin entered the world, lust also began, and thus nakedness became a shame and it began to arouse sinful sexual feelings. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve could enjoy all the blessings of this great gift of sexuality without any sinful sexual feeling. As I explained above, sexual feelings do not need to be sinful in order to exist; they can exist in a pure way within marriage. They don’t need to have as object to fulfill a carnal need, but to express the highest degree of covenantal love between the couple. Of course, a depraved man cannot understand these things as he doesn’t have the spiritual mind of Christ, therefore Mormons and all cultists cannot understand these things. Mormons cannot understand how our bodies are not sinful as such.

This is the kind of truths that cultists corrupt to their own destruction! As you can see, Stephen and others are deceived and misled by such misunderstandings, and live their lives in bondage to sin.

~

Stephen continues, and wants to give a biblical authority to his ridiculous doctrine:

God even asked Adam who had told him he was naked, demanding to know if they had partaken of the fruit.  This clearly indicates God knew they were not capable of ever gaining sexual knowledge unless they partook of said fruit.

God didn’t ask Adam because He saw him having sexual intercourse with Eve, but because Adam feared God because of his nakedness. So how did you put this relation between sexual knowledge and the question of God?? There is no relation. Please, show me where you read about “sexual knowledge” in this whole passage:

“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of Jehovah Elohim, walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah Elohim, in the midst of the trees of the garden. And Jehovah Elohim called to Man, and said to him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I feared, because I am naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou art naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee not to eat?” (Genesis 3:7-11)

Please, show me where you read anything about sexual intercourse??!! Usually those whose mind and imaginations are corrupted by pornography imagine a sexual intercourse in such a passage where absolutely nothing is said about any sexual intercourse. Besides, did you notice that Adam and Eve were not even naked in the sense that corrupted minds understand this passage?! They had on them some aprons made of fig leaves! And the text says that they feared because of nakedness! The verb to fear is used here, and not shame! Why is that? Why couldn’t the fig leaves hide the shame of their nakedness? And why did they fear?

In fact, when Adam ate from the forbidden tree, he died the same moment, just as God clearly warned him. This death was the spiritual death, i.e. the spiritual separation from God. And with this spiritual death also came the physical death that began at that moment. So this nakedness is not just a physical nakedness as depraved minds imagine, but it is also a spiritual nakedness. This was the rebellion of man against his Creator Lord… And immediately after this rebellion, man became self-righteous!! He wanted to justify himself with his works just as cultists and all false religions teach their followers to do… Read with me:

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” (Genesis 3:7)

This nakedness is not just a physical nakedness. In fact, if sin didn’t enter to the world, we would continue to live naked, because we would not have sinful lust because of it. You see here that their eyes were opened to sin, so they began to feel the shame of sin in their hearts, and so they wanted to cover their shameful sinfulness. To cover that, what did they choose? Did they choose for example to ask God how to solve this problem? Did they begin to think about the death sentence that was upon them now? No. They chose to cover themselves with fig leaves… Fig leaves and the fruit of the ground in the Bible represent human good works by which they try to please God, the works that are offered from the ground, from man, to God, and that meaning began from this first incidence with Adam and Eve who wanted to cover their sinfulness with their good works. After them Cain also wanted to present to God an offering from the fruit of the earth, but God refused that offering (see Genesis 4:3-5). And this is what self-righteousness is, and all cults and religions follow this principle of self-righteousness. Religions and cults tell you to try to make yourself right with God by having good intentions, doing good works, helping the poor, praying very much, to do this and that… but they never tell you to solve the problem of spiritual death, because they cannot offer you a solution! They even avoid this subject of spiritual death, just as you see Mormons do. God said that the result of eating from the forbidden tree would be to surely die, and that’s what happened: we all died spiritually. This means that we were separated from God spiritually, and we became the enemies of God by our wills and rebellious hearts. The solution for this spiritual death is not by covering it with dead works that look good, like Adam and Eve did by covering themselves with fig leaves, but by paying that punishment of death. So the solution would be either that Adam and Eve would die eternally, and thus no solution (and that would be just, as God said that death would be the result of their sin), or that someone else pay the punishment in the place of man, and thus man can be saved by putting himself under the authority of this substitute who will pay the debt in his place. Now, we saw that Adam and Eve didn’t even want to think about all this, and they chose good works instead, they chose self-righteousness, and so they covered themselves with fig leaves. And this is what Satan wants; he wants to turn your eyes from the necessity of a solution for the problem of spiritual death and from the necessity to be born again, and so he encourages you to be religious and self-righteous, to try to do your best to do good works and to please God… etc etc… But the essential for Satan is that you never think about your state of spiritual death and separation from God. And the blood of Jesus is the solution to that problem. Look how:

After Adam and Eve made for themselves covering with fig leaves and chose self-righteousness and good works to cover their sinfulness, look what happened:

“They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”
He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.””
(Genesis 3:8-10)

Oh? Did they not plan to cover themselves with those leaves? Then why do they still find themselves naked when God calls them? God called man, and man told him that he hid himself because he was naked and was what? Ashamed? NO! He was AFRAID!!! Man was afraid because he was spiritually sinful and naked before God, even with all those fig leaves on his body!! So good works didn’t serve to cover his sinfulness before God. And look what was the solution of God:

“The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” (Genesis 3:21)

This means that God sacrificed an animal, and made garments for Adam and Eve from the skin of that animal. By this He gave Adam and Eve the first Gospel message: that another should die to pay the debt of death that was upon them because of their sin. And with this sign, He also made it clear that this animal substitute was only a shadow or a symbol for the true Substitute Jesus Christ who would be born from a virgin woman, and would pay the debt of our sins by dying on the cross. Here is the promise of God while He was talking to Satan:

“And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
(Genesis 3:15)

Jesus Christ is the only One who could bruise the head of Satan. And that’s what He did. To be saved from the fear of eternal death in Hell and from the judgment that comes on your sins, you need to put your whole trust in this Substitute who has paid the debt of our sins and place yourself under His authority as your Lord, and NEVER put your trust on any good work that you may or any human may do! You cannot save yourself, and no one can save you. Only Jesus Christ has paid the debt of our sins, and only Jesus Christ could bruise the head of Satan, so only Jesus Christ can save you. We have seen how it is impossible to be saved by believing in the false christ of Mormonism in our article: Should we associate with the Mormons?

So you are deceived by your teachers concerning the nakedness of Adam and Eve and its relation with the gift of sexuality.

~

Stephen continues to explain his funny theory:

In that state of innocence, Adam and Eve could not have produced children, period.

The Bible says they could. Period. It’s GOD who puts the period, and not you, poor human! God told us that animals could reproduce without having to feel shame for their nakedness and without eating from the forbidden tree.

~

Stephen continues and says:

Until they had made the decision to break the commandment of abstaining from the fruit, their bodies did not furnish them knowledge of procreation.  This knowledge did not and could not have come naturally to them while in the Garden, no matter how long their stay lasted.

We have seen that it could. Your imaginations have no basis in the truth.

~

Stephen said:

Second and most obvious, let us use simple reason.  How could Adam and Eve engaging in sexual intercourse—in the bounds of matrimony—be counted as sin if reproduction was a direct commandment of God?  Would He command us to commit sin, especially sexual sin?

Great! So how do you imagine God putting Adam and Eve in a situation in which they were obliged to choose between two sins? You say they would either disobey the commandment of fruitfulness or the commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree. Why are you not consistent? Do you not fear when you accuse God of this sinful situation?

~

Stephen then quotes a human to endorse his funny theory:

“Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy.”  (2 Nephi 2:22-25)

And is this the book of human false teachings that you follow? We have seen how this teaching that “Adam fell that men might be” is a purely false teaching that misunderstands the biblical doctrine of spiritual nakedness and of the purity of marriage! Besides, this verse that you quoted is a pure pagan teaching about hedonism: “and men are that they might have joy”!! No, dear Stephen, man is not here with the object to have joy! Man is here to glorify God! We are created to God’s Glory, and we can never reach the real purpose of our existence without reaching this truth! “Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.” (Isaiah 43:7) “because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) So stop following those sinful human teachings that encourage you to self-centeredness and to hedonism, and choose to live to God’s Glory and not for your carnal happiness.

~

Stephen continues:

Yes, man was meant to fall so he would have a mortal probation to prove his loyalty to God by overcoming the will of the flesh and submitting to God’s will.

Stop accusing your Creator of this sin. Wake up!

~

Then Stephen said:

But it had to be man’s choice with no excuses for failure, blaming God for putting him in such a sinful world.

You have really lost your references… This world was not sinful before Adam fell in sin…

~

And then he says:

And yes, we look at Adam and Eve with great appreciation rather than with disdain.  Mortality is a good thing.  It was God’s plan.

Yes, God was not surprised by our sin, as God is Omniscient. But no, God did not cause our sin in any way! And mortality is not just a physical death, but also a spiritual death which is the spiritual separation from God! Do you call this death a good thing?? The Word of God has a different thing to say about it:

“Since therefore the children partake of blood and flesh, he also, in like manner, took part in the same, that through death he might annul him who has the might of death, that is, the devil; and might set free all those who through fear of death through the whole of their life were subject to bondage.” (Hebrews 2:14-15)

As your cult has not the means to make you free of this bondage, so it even convinced you that it is something good!!…

~

And a new doctrine from Stephen:

Though we all come without recollection of our prior habitation, each of us accepted the terms and conditions of mortality while we resided in premortality.  We will discuss that concept in Chapter Two.

This is a false teaching of the New Age Movement: human pre-existence before birth. The Bible is clear that we begin to exist when we are born:

On the sixth day of creation, God created man on earth:

“And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you; and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:27-31)

So God didn’t create Adam and Eve as spirits in Heaven, but he created them physically on earth. And the verb used here is not to make but to create (Hebrew: Bara). To create means to make something exist from non-existence. So Adam and Eve didn’t exist before God created them.

Again:

“And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

You see how Adam existed from the dust of the ground, and he didn’t exist before that, and that he received his breath of life from God’s creative work (“breathed into his nostrils”), and not from a pre-existing soul.

And Paul explains this fact; he says:

“Thus also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit. But that which is spiritual [was] not first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual: the first man out of [the] earth, made of dust; the second man, out of heaven. Such as he made of dust, such also those made of dust; and such as the heavenly [one], such also the heavenly [ones]. And as we have borne the image of the [one] made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly [one].” (1 Corinthians 15:45-49)

In this passage, the Apostle explains all what I explained above, and more: he says the first Man is Adam, and the last Adam is Jesus Christ. This is very important to understand before you can understand the rest. So the first Man is the Adam we read about in Genesis 1, and we saw how he was created. The second Adam is NOT created, but comes from Heaven. The contrast here is between the Adam who is NOT from Heaven and who was created and did NOT pre-exist, and the last Adam who is from Heaven and pre-existed and is NOT from this earth and who is NOT created. Jesus said: “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” (John 8:23) So man is not from above; man is not from Heaven. Jesus Christ is from Heaven. And the Apostle Paul makes it clear that the spiritual was not first, and that Adam was not the spiritual Man, but his origin was the earth; he is made of dust; he doesn’t come from Heaven. It is the SECOND Man, Jesus Christ, whose origin is Heaven. And the apostle makes it clear that we all are like Adam: we don’t pre-exist; we are of dust, just as David makes it clear: “My bones were not hidden from thee when I was made in secret, curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth.” (Psalm 139:15) Of course, David was not created in the lower parts of the earth or under the ground or something! David is explaining to us how he is from the dust, how his origin is the dust of the ground, just like Adam. He doesn’t have an origin somewhere else than the earth. And the most interesting part is that Paul makes it clear that the bearing of the image of the heavenly one is a FUTURE event.

So this dream of pre-mortality is just another form of the New Age pre-existence theory, and it was always the teaching of some pagan religions. It has zero evidence in the Word of God; on the contrary, it contradicts what the Word of God says, as we have seen.

Besides, this false teaching of pre-existence is against the Nature of God! God does not judge people for decisions that they didn’t really make! As you read, Stephen said: “Though we all come without recollection of our prior habitation, each of us accepted the terms and conditions of mortality while we resided in premortality.” What a cruel god this would be (if he existed) who makes people bear the result of a decision that they don’t remember they made! What a cruel doctrine of blind determinism! In addition to this, I would like to see how Stephen will explain to us the reason of such a wrong choice that we supposedly made in Heaven! Does he mean that we made a wrong choice and thus sinned before we were made of dust? Does this mean that Adam sinned before he was created??!! Then how does God say AFTER creating man of dust: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) It was very good while there were bad choices and mortality in it?? What kind of a wrong opinion you have about God’s Nature, Stephen!! As I said above, this whole issue is related to the Nature of God.

Stephen finally says: “We will discuss that concept in Chapter Two.” Let’s see how he will try to justify his accusations against God in order to justify his sins…

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 6 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript, Religious Movements. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Did Adam have to choose between two sins?

  1. SoldierofChrist777 says:

    Beautiful reply, brother. God bless you for your efforts.

    Yes, this is a clear example of how cultists like to add their own ideas to what the Bible says. They always end up contradicting the Word of God when they do.

    God commanded man and woman to be fruitful and multiply, and that was before the fall of man. So I wonder how on earth Stephen came up with his weird theory.

    Oh, well. Let him continue sticking to the lies and falsehoods of Mormonism.

  2. Siwon lover says:

    A revelation is the truth that has become a reality in our lives and motivates us to act upon it. The moment we step out in obedience, God will manifest His sovereignty (Gen. 6:9 – 7:24).

  3. Hello!

    You quote: “and every one who lives and believes on me shall never die.” (John 11:26)

    Your quote touches on atonement and I want to comment about that.

    (le-havdil)
    How to live in order to enable the Creator in His loving kindness to provide His kipur –atonement- is outlined in Tan’’kh ; and was also taught by Ribi Yehoshua. The first century Ribi Yehoshua from Nazareth (the Mashiakh; the Messiah) taught in accordance with Tan’’kh the only way to get connection with the Creator, This way is found both in Torah and in Ribi Yehoshuas teachings found in our website – http://www.netzarim.co.il

    Anders Branderud

  4. Dear Anders,

    It seems you don’t have any other comment, so you write the same comment on everything you read on our site… You previously commented on our article Should we associate with the Mormons, and there also you used exactly the same words and the same sentences as a reply…

    Dear friend, we have previously explained how the Jews didn’t understand the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and how they refused His Atonement and wanted to stay in the Old Covenant and under the Law. We have explained these things clearly in our article: What does the word “Messiah” mean? Who is the Messiah? I encourage you to read it with carefulness, as it contains all what anyone (and especially a Jew) needs to know about the Messiah. Salvation is not by the works of the Law, as you suggest, but it is by Grace alone, by what Jesus Christ has done and finished on the cross.

    Now, once again you advise people to find the teachings of Jesus Christ on your site, as if people cannot read the New Testament Book and see what Jesus taught and did. Once again I tell you: Dear Anders, the only place you can find the real teachings of the real Mashiakh is the Bible, and not your website. If your website doesn’t present the biblical teaching, then it’s not a trustworthy source of knowledge. And indeed your site doesn’t present the truth about Jesus Christ, but it presents the teachings of the false prophets who opposed the teachings of the true Apostles in the first century A.D. and about whom the Apostles explained in their Epistles; they told us how they were trying to teach a false gospel of salvation by the works of the Law and how they were trying to oblige the disciples to be circumcised, and how they were presenting themselves as the true apostles of Christ (just as you do) as their father Satan also presents himself as an angel of light. These false teachings have no place among us, Christians, so you should realize this.

    In that article about the Messiah to which I linked above, you will see how, contrary to what you say, the Creator doesn’t need fallen humans like us to “enable” Him to provide His Atonement. The Messiah finished the work of Salvation while we were still sinners and unable to do anything to save ourselves. The works of the Law cannot justify you before God, as you are a sinner who cannot do the Will of God perfectly. To know more about this, you can read the following article: How to be justified before God?

    So you need to know who Jesus (Y’shua) really is: He is not a simple rabbi; He is the Messiah (Ha-Mashiakh), i.e. God incarnate who came to save us from our sins, the Son of God, the King of Heaven incarnated to be the King on the throne of David forever, the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek and not according to the order of Aaron. You need to receive this true Messiah, and not the false “Jesus” that you follow right now.

    As a final note, you don’t need to use Hebrew expressions like “le-havdil”. It is to the Jews that God said that He will speak in strange languages, so understand that God chose for Himself a holy nation from all nations and tongues, and the Hebrew is not His language. “Pajanoum”… How do you feel after reading this word?… If you feel bad, then stop using Hebrew words with strangers, as that shows disrespect.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  5. Kristianapologist says:

    Unfortunately whoever wrote this exegesis never explained why there is no bible reference to Adam and Eve having children BEFORE the Fall, thus making Stephen’s position much more plausible considering that Adam and Eve remained in a state of innocence prior to the Fall, and only afterwards were their “eyes” opened and was knowledge granted to them. It is clear that Adam and Eve did not know good from evil until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit. The command to multiply and replenish the earth was in force, however in their state of innocence they could do no good for they knew no sin. A state of neutrality prohibited them from fulfilling the command to have children and bring about mortality into the world, a “testing ground” if you will. Sin is necessary that man be tested and ultimately judged, otherwise there would be no need for a Savior and Adam and Eve would have lived forever alone in the garden and DISOBEYING God by not multiplying and replenishing the earth. Prove to me from God’s Word that Adam and Eve had children before the Fall! You can’t! Their eyes were not opened to do so until they willfuly partook of the forbidden fruit, were cast out of the garden, and thus brought about mortality. You ignorant fools who claim to know God’s word and call yourselves His disciples.

  6. Dear Kristianapologist,

    Welcome back to our weblog. The last time you said that you left disappointed… It is really encouraging to see you coming back and reading another article on our weblog. This shows that you’re still looking for the truth.

    Now, concerning your present comment, it seems that you encourage the false teachings of the Mormons. If you are a Mormon, how honest it would be if you tell us about this fact…

    You said:

    Unfortunately whoever wrote this exegesis never explained why there is no bible reference to Adam and Eve having children BEFORE the Fall, thus making Stephen’s position much more plausible considering that Adam and Eve remained in a state of innocence prior to the Fall, and only afterwards were their “eyes” opened and was knowledge granted to them.

    Dear, there is no Bible reference to Adam and Eve having children before the Fall for the simple reason that they didn’t have children before the Fall. Is this so complicated for you to understand? And we thank God that they didn’t have children before the Fall, or else it would be impossible to save those children when they fall in sin, as in that case Christ would need to die for each of them and for each of their children and for each of their children of children, and He would need to be incarnated many times, each time from the seed of one of those children!!

    But you couldn’t understand this simple fact: That God didn’t say that Adam and Eve had children before the Fall for the simple reason that they didn’t have children before the Fall… For you it was better to believe that nakedness needed to be a shame in order to have children, although this pagan belief is against the teaching of the Bible, as we have seen in the article. Animals still reproduce, and I wonder if you think their eyes also were “opened” and now they know that they are naked… I wonder why they don’t wear cloths like the dog in the picture in the article…

    You prefer to believe the pagan beliefs of Stephen, because you prefer to believe lies. You refused the biblical explanation, and you preferred Stephen’s imaginations. Just as Jesus said, you teach human teachings as doctrine and you refuse the teachings of the Word of God.

    You continue:

    It is clear that Adam and Eve did not know good from evil until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit.

    The only clear thing in this context is your ignorance and your carelessness about what God said. Have you not read the article? Eve told Satan what is RIGHT!! She corrected his error concerning all the trees of the Garden! God had told Adam and Eve what is good and what is evil. But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the choice of deciding what is good and what is evil, as we saw in the article. Did Adam and Eve need to have the authority to decide what is good and what is evil in order to know what is good and what is evil?? Can’t you just accept the authority of God to decide what is good and what is evil? Indeed, this was the sin of humanity: we decided to have control over our destiny and to have the divine authority of deciding what is good and what is evil; we decided that we should be like God!! And that’s what was bad! That’s the sin of sins! That’s pride! And all cults and false religions continue to preach this doctrine of self-righteousness and they tell you that you are a god, just as Stephen and his cult do. And you prefer to believe that, as you still didn’t accept the light of Jesus Christ.

    The command to multiply and replenish the earth was in force, however in their state of innocence they could do no good for they knew no sin.

    This is the summit of ignorance! You say a person cannot do good unless he knows sin?? What an ignorant comment, Kristianapologist!! Then does God do good because He knew sin? Does Jesus do good because He knew sin?

    This is what corrupted and reprobate mind is…

    Besides, do animals obey the command to multiply because they knew sin?…

    Please, leave that darkness… please…

    A state of neutrality prohibited them from fulfilling the command to have children and bring about mortality into the world, a “testing ground” if you will.

    Adam and Eve were not neutral. God created them GOOD. God clearly said that He saw that all what He created was VERY GOOD.

    All is explained in the article.

    Sin is necessary that man be tested and ultimately judged, otherwise there would be no need for a Savior and Adam and Eve would have lived forever alone in the garden and DISOBEYING God by not multiplying and replenishing the earth.

    For you, sin is necessary, because you like sin. For God, sin is not necessary, as He hates sin. And we have seen how Adam and Eve could have children before the Fall, but they didn’t, and that was by divine providence, because God knew they would sin and so they would need a Savior. If they had children before the Fall, it would be impossible to redeem them.

    Prove to me from God’s Word that Adam and Eve had children before the Fall!

    They didn’t. But they could have children. They just didn’t have children, and that was by divine providence, as we have seen above.

    You can’t! Their eyes were not opened to do so until they willfuly partook of the forbidden fruit, were cast out of the garden, and thus brought about mortality.

    And so we conclude that Mormons believe that animals also reproduce now because their eyes were opened to do so, as they also partook of the forbidden fruit, were cast out of the Garden, and thus brought about mortality…

    Pagan and anti-Bible beliefs.

    You ignorant fools who claim to know God’s word and call yourselves His disciples.

    Thank you, dear Kristianapologist. The Lord bless you richly!

    I am sorry for you, Mormons, as you are very embarrassed after you read this strong answer to Stephen’s document. You realize how silly it is to believe that animals had to have their eyes opened in order to reproduce… But what can you do?… You can’t leave these pagan teachings, as you already told everyone that you’re Mormons, and you are too proud to admit that you were wrong.

    I pray that the Lord will save you from this darkness.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  7. Stephen Douglas says:

    Hey “Jacob,”

    Good to see you still use a multitude of words and still cannot refute simple facts. As Kristianapologist said, UNTIL they had partaken, no hanky-panky was going on, as they were in a state of innocence, like children. That is why Adam and Eve transgressed, not sinned, and could not be held accountable for sin until they had knowledge, which only came by way of partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, hence the name of the tree! And one of your first quotes from the NT shows that by Adam came death, so your argument man didn’t create anything is irrelevant. Causing death is not creating death.

    Of course, there is Biblical silence on when Adam and Eve first had children, but we know Cain fled to another land where he found a wife, which means Adam and Eve had other children PRIOR to Cain and Abel. The Bible is also silent about how long they were in the Garden of Eden until they partook of the fruit.

    As for me making poor choice of words that lend to misunderstanding, I have personally not heard from anyone other than you how my reasoning is misunderstood. And I don’t believe you have difficulty understanding me. I think you are just playing a legastic game, using symantics to say, AHA!

    And any of your supportive readers, if they are not just your associates, can read my manuscript for themselves by sending me a request on my email at puteoli1@aol.com. That way, they can get through it less than 6 hours of personal reading, instead of having to wait for you to dissect and misinterpret what everyone else who has given me feedback seems to get.

    Bye for now.

  8. Stephen Douglas says:

    Oops, typo alert. I meant “legalistic.”

  9. It’s a characteristic of cultists not to read the replies of Christians carefully, and therefore they keep repeating the same errors that were answered previously.

    By the way, Stephen writes to “Jacob”… he still couldn’t understand that this weblog belongs to the Lord, and that we all here work as one body together.

    Let’s see:

    Good to see you still use a multitude of words and still cannot refute simple facts.

    We have previously seen how Stephen has a problem with our clear explanations, as they don’t give him the opportunity to play on words and to mislead people.

    So I don’t see a need to comment on this fear that he has of our strong biblical replies.

    We pass…

    As Kristianapologist said, UNTIL they had partaken, no hanky-panky was going on, as they were in a state of innocence, like children.

    As we have seen, Adam and Eve were not children, and their innocence was not an innocence in the knowledge of right and wrong, but an innocence in experiencing sin. We have seen this in details in the article, so there is no need to repeat things again and again for the cultists who don’t want to read carefully. We can quote the explanation here again:

    “The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with the freedom to choose, and it has nothing to do with the knowledge of Adam that eating from that tree was wrong. Let me take each of these points:

    1. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with the freedom to choose: This is evident, as you don’t need to be neutral in order to choose. Adam and Eve were created good, so they didn’t need to be outside of good and outside of evil in order to choose to obey God or in order to have the ability to disobey and thus choose evil. You don’t need to lose all your money in order to be able to choose to keep it. This is simple logic. You can just choose to keep your money while it is still with you. In the same way, Adam and Eve could very simply choose to keep their innocence, and they didn’t need to lose it in order to choose to keep it. You see of course the wrong logic of Stephen that has no basis in the Word of God. The knowledge of good and evil means to be independent and neutral, i.e. independent from good and evil as such.

    2. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with the knowledge of Adam that eating from that tree was wrong: This is evident, as you don’t need to experience the result of falling from the 10th floor of a building in order to know that you will die if you do. How do you know that you will die? Because you believe what the human experience tells you about men who fell and died, and you believe science that explains why you will die if you fall. In the same way, Adam didn’t need to experimentally know evil in order to avoid it, as God told him: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.” (Genesis 2:17) All what Adam had to do was to believe what God said about that tree, just as you believe human experience and human science concerning the falling from the 10th floor.

    So Adam knew the action taken was wrong. God told him very clearly that it is wrong. So when he disobeyed, he sinned. In fact, although you put a distinction between a transgression and a sin, and yet God says that sin is the transgression of His commandments: “Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4) When you break the Law, i.e. the commandments of God, you sin.”

    And we have seen how ignorant is the conclusion of Mormons concerning the relations between Adam and Eve, especially when the Bible says that animals could have sexual relations without eating from the forbidden tree… We don’t need to repeat again and again this point that should have embarrassed the Mormons very much until now…

    That is why Adam and Eve transgressed, not sinned, and could not be held accountable for sin until they had knowledge, which only came by way of partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, hence the name of the tree!

    First, we have seen above and in the article what the name of the tree means, and it has nothing to do with what Stephen and his cultist teachers say. So no need to repeat the explanation.

    We have also seen in the Bible that sin is transgression. Stephen shows rebellion against what God says about sin, and he doesn’t want to believe what the Bible says. Adam and Eve knew very well that eating from that tree was wrong, as God told them it is wrong. So they were fully accountable for their sin, just as each one of us is accountable for any transgression of the Law of God.

    And one of your first quotes from the NT shows that by Adam came death, so your argument man didn’t create anything is irrelevant. Causing death is not creating death.

    So you admit that the verb “create” is wrong here. Thank you for admitting it. And thank you also for admitting that Adam DID sin, as death is the wages of sin (cf. Romans 6:23) and you say that Adam caused death by his transgression.

    Of course, there is Biblical silence on when Adam and Eve first had children, but we know Cain fled to another land where he found a wife, which means Adam and Eve had other children PRIOR to Cain and Abel. The Bible is also silent about how long they were in the Garden of Eden until they partook of the fruit.

    This is irrelevant to our argument: Adam and Eve didn’t have children prior to the Fall, and this has nothing to do with them having children prior to Cain and Abel, as Cain and Abel were born after the Fall, and we have seen in the article and in the related discussions how the Bible clearly tells us that Adam and Eve didn’t have children before the Fall. As all men have sinned, so all have the fallen nature of Adam. And the Bible never says that Adam and Eve had children prior to Cain and Abel. They could have a child born a few years after Cain and Abel. Once again, we see how cultists build their false doctrines on assumptions, and not on what the Bible clearly teaches.

    As for me making poor choice of words that lend to misunderstanding, I have personally not heard from anyone other than you how my reasoning is misunderstood.

    I am sorry that you pass so much time with cultists who already agree with you, and therefore they have no problem with your wrong reasoning… Besides, I know that you already have problems in communication with other Christians, especially on Facebook… So once again, you’re not being honest…

    And I don’t believe you have difficulty understanding me.

    Yes, that’s because you think all people are hypocrite like you…

    You don’t present any biblical argument, dear friend, and so people are not supposed to understand your lies.

    I think you are just playing a legastic game, using symantics to say, AHA!

    Aha! I see… How poor…

    We are discussing these deep matters with people who are ignorant about what the Bible says, and they boast of being ignorant… They are so ignorant that all what they see in our biblical replies is “AHA!”…

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  10. Stephen Douglas says:

    Yeah, I guess it is hard to know whom I need to address, since you are anonymous. So, if you are not Jacob, who are you? Give us your real name. Stand up and be counted. Cut the cloak and dagger mystery garbage. No one is out to get you! You don’t have a big readership here. And no, I don’t believe all people are hypocrites. I don’t even think you are a hypocrite. I just think you suffer delusions of grandeur and paranoia, that you believe the world of Biblical understanding is only yours to possess.

    But hey, send me an email if you feel you have to let me know something, since it will probably be another half year before I check back to this site…

    Oh, yeah, Be in Peace

  11. Stephen,

    Once again, the sole fact that you insist on knowing whom you’re talking to shows that the things that you will say are not the truth that can be addressed to everyone alike, but that they are lies with which you want to deceive some people privately according to what you know about them and about their personalities and about their background. Nice confession.

    I can assure you that Jacob and Geawergios are reading these things, so go ahead, begin to answer our arguments already. Enough embarrassing yourself like this.

    You can’t know about the number of our readers, and you can’t know whether we are persecuted or not. So concentrate on your business, and go ahead, begin to answer our arguments.

    But I understand why you concentrate on personal attacks instead, as you don’t have any answer to our arguments.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  12. James says:

    YAQUBOS,
    You appear to be just as long-winded and spiteful on your blog as you were in the CARM chat room. My initial impressions were correct. One of your opening statements confirms for me that you will take every opportunity to somehow jab or mock Mormonism. You said:

    “In fact, all the doctrines of Mormonism must be accepted without a deep study, or else no one would accept them…”

    I’m not interested in a conversation like that. I enjoy friendly discussions, even if vigorous disagreements exist and no punches are pulled. We can still approach each other and our respective faiths with charity, patience, and a little humility. I don’t see that manifested in the little I’ve read on this blog, or in our interactions at CARM. I recommend you consider Krister Stendahl’s three rules for interfaith dialogue:

    (1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

    (2) Don’t compare your best to their worst.

    (3) Leave room for “holy envy.” (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

    If you have a desire for a friendly discussion, feel free to email me or visit my blog.

    James (Lehi from CARM chatroom)

  13. As you see, another Mormon came here to talk about his self-righteousness and could not answer the argument of our article. We didn’t expect otherwise…

    By the way, the first point of Stendahl’s three rules that he quoted was:

    (1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

    I wish to remind James that Stephen Douglas who sent to us this document is not an enemy of Mormonism, but he is a Mormon…

    As for rule 2, I remind him that this article is not about a comparison between two religions, but a biblical answer to a Mormon document’s non-biblical doctrine.

    As for rule 3, we don’t envy what is against God’s Will. We only want the truth.

    So thank you again for showing our readers how Mormons do not have any answer to our biblical arguments.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  14. James says:

    There is an awful logical disconnect in your reply above. You’ve claimed that I “do not have any answer” to your “biblical arguments.” How do you know that? I didn’t even attempt to provide any! The only logical way that you could know that I don’t have an answer to your arguments here is if I had provided an answer that was clearly insufficient. But I didn’t provide any answer at all. I didn’t even try.

    Where you err is in assuming that because I didn’t attempt to answer that must mean that I can’t provide an answer. That is a terrible assumption to make. I believe I have a good answer, and that were I to enter into a debate with you on that point I would win. But I am not providing that answer. I am not debating you. Why?

    In the words of Louis Midgley, celebrated LDS scholar:

    “Engaging in debates with evangelicals may tempt us to make at least two mistakes. First, our own opinions, whatever they might be, are often among our most prized properties. They define, as much or more than anything, who and what we are. Hence we tend to hold passionately to our opinions come what may. And when our opinions are challenged, we fight back and may even desire revenge or succumb to the urge to counterattack. We can easily be induced into seeing the Other as a Diabolical Monster and ourselves as a Holy Knight fighting the good fight against evil and error. We also may find it useful to rationalize our words and deeds. Likewise, when we confront those with different opinions, we may end up in verbal or written strife, competition, or combat over our opinions. We may also make the mistake of not really desiring to understand the opinions of the Other. One reason for this is that debates take place before real or imagined audiences and hence in a kind of theater in which points are scored or awarded. The “winner” in a debate often succeeds by the crafty use of rhetoric. The goal easily becomes winning or appearing to win a contest. Clever, quick, confident responses are at a premium in such exchanges. And often biased, poorly informed audiences serve as the judge and presumably determine a winner. Why is this so?

    We are, I am confident, familiar with debates among those seeking public office or with the polemics of those seeking to advance an ideology. Debates often dwindle into a kind of theater where the mob takes over. To debate, either formally or informally, is not necessarily to inform or to discover truth but to convince an audience functioning as either judge or jury, or perhaps even ourselves, in a strife for superiority between adversaries. The word debate (L. de, down, + battuere, beat) has always carried the pejorative meaning of beating down an opponent in what amounts to a war of words.”
    http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2&id=718

    I’ve spent enough years in the gutter “bible-bashing” with Evangelicals and others. It isn’t productive and it yields exactly zero positive fruits for anyone. I’d be happy to entertain a civil discussion, one that doesn’t constantly require one to be on the attack or on the defense. I don’t see that as a probability with you right now, so I will refrain.

  15. Welcome back, James. I thought you said you’re not interested in answering us…

    Now, you say:

    There is an awful logical disconnect in your reply above. You’ve claimed that I “do not have any answer” to your “biblical arguments.” How do you know that? I didn’t even attempt to provide any!

    That’s why! No Mormon ever tried to provide any, and whenever they tried to provide an answer, they got embarrassed, as their answers could not meet the power of our biblical arguments.

    Now, I am sure that you don’t have any answer to our biblical arguments, not because I think you cannot waste our times with some long reply as you did now (a reply is not always an answer), but because false doctrines like yours cannot be defended by God’s truth, just as a lie cannot agree with the truth. If you think that you can answer our biblical arguments, then go ahead, we’re waiting…

    I believe I have a good answer, and that were I to enter into a debate with you on that point I would win.

    No one can win a war against the Lamb and those who are with Him. Try it and see. Of course you will believe that you would win, but once again that’s an illusion.

    So does the expression “were I to enter into a debate with you” mean that you won’t enter into a debate with us?…

    As for your quote from your blind leader Louis Midgley, I would like to remind him that the debates of the children of God are not for the purpose to show who wins and who is defeated, but to declare the truth to those who are perishing. I remind him that Paul said: “for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5) As you see, with our divinely powerful weapons we are destroying those Mormon teachings that are keeping people like you captive, and all what your blind leaders have as means of defense is to tell you: “Just don’t debate with those dangerous Christians”… They are blind leaders leading blind people. But our faith is that Jesus gives sight to the blind! I am sure the same opinion about debates would be given by Mormon leaders to Stephen, because “some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.” (Acts 6:9-10) So poor from Mormons…

    Stop listening to those blind leaders, James. You can’t answer us, because you can’t find any good argument in defense of your false doctrines before the powerful attacks of God’s Word. Jesus said: “Repent therefore: but if not, I come to thee quickly, and I will make war with them with the sword of my mouth.” (Revelation 2:16) Your weak weapons cannot stand before the Sword of His mouth.

    You said:

    I’ve spent enough years in the gutter “bible-bashing” with Evangelicals and others. It isn’t productive and it yields exactly zero positive fruits for anyone. I’d be happy to entertain a civil discussion, one that doesn’t constantly require one to be on the attack or on the defense. I don’t see that as a probability with you right now, so I will refrain.

    I guess a “civil discussion” means for you that we should just forget about the deep disagreement of your false doctrine with God’s Word, and that we should just be open-minded, just as your Mormon friend Stephen Douglas said and to which we answered: Mormons confess that they are “open minded” in the interpretation of the Word of God.

    It is really clear how Mormons keep fleeing from our arguments. They say they won’t debate, but we are seeing how Stephen Douglas is debating against God’s truth in his document which he sent to us. But as soon as we answer his ignorant arguments, Mormons begin to shout: “No no, we won’t debate”…

    That’s clear…

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  16. James says:

    Sigh…

    Let me make this as simple as I can. There are two possibilities that might explain why I am not engaging you in a debate. Only one of these two possibilities is the correct choice:

    (1) I am not engaging you in a debate about LDS doctrine because I don’t feel up to the task. I think that you will have better arguments than me, and that my doctrinal position is inferior and so I am avoiding having to discuss it with you.

    Or

    (2) I am not engaging you in a debate about LDS doctrine because I am not interested in the rancor and spite that will inevitably result. I perceive that you will not be an enjoyable conversationalist, and I’m not interested in “bible-bashing” with the likes of you. It has nothing to do with how I feel about my doctrinal position, but it is merely about personalities.

    The correct explanation is option (2). However, though I’ve explained that to you already, you maintain that it is because of option (1). From my perspective, it is more than a bit prideful for you to assume that because someone won’t debate you it must be because they don’t feel they are able to. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that for some people, you are simply not the kind of personality they prefer to deal with, and that it has nothing to do with your doctrinal position or skills in debate.

  17. James says:

    One more thing….Louis Midgley is not a LDS leader. He is a LDS scholar, and the editor of the FARMS Review.

  18. Welcome back, James! What’s the matter? Why do you waste our times with these personal comments instead of answering the arguments used in the article?…

    You said:

    Sigh…

    Don’t worry, I feel the trouble in which you are…

    Let me make this as simple as I can. There are two possibilities that might explain why I am not engaging you in a debate. Only one of these two possibilities is the correct choice:

    Let’s see what are these two possibilities:

    (1) I am not engaging you in a debate about LDS doctrine because I don’t feel up to the task. I think that you will have better arguments than me, and that my doctrinal position is inferior and so I am avoiding having to discuss it with you.

    Wrong! This is not how you think, I am sure. I will tell you later in this reply what the real reason is. Let’s see your second possibility:

    Or

    (2) I am not engaging you in a debate about LDS doctrine because I am not interested in the rancor and spite that will inevitably result. I perceive that you will not be an enjoyable conversationalist, and I’m not interested in “bible-bashing” with the likes of you. It has nothing to do with how I feel about my doctrinal position, but it is merely about personalities.

    This is correct, but this is only the visible result of your internal hypocrisy: you know in your heart that you can’t oppose the biblical arguments, but you convince yourself that you have the right answers anyway (thus the first possibility is wrong if we will consider what you truly think), so you choose to rather attack my morality and my attitude, because you are afraid to engage in a debate against my biblical arguments, as you fear to be disillusioned about your ability to answer. If you fail to answer, then how will you justify your refusal to believe in Jesus Christ as your only Lord and Savior and to accept the whole biblical truth?

    This is indeed the problem with all Mormons. We have met this attitude with other Mormons on this weblog and in other places, and we have also met it with other people who oppose the truth of God’s Word.

    By the way: Thank you for your judgments; you judge that I will not be a good conversationalist (and of course, it’s you who define “good” with that word “enjoyable” that you used), although you didn’t even try to debate with me. It is to be noted that what you “enjoy” seems NOT to be God’s truth… You seem to rather enjoy talking about dreams and human philosophies and thus have entertainment and fun… Maybe for you such debates should be just for fun, and not for the love of the truth, even if that truth hurts you as a deceived person…

    You added:

    The correct explanation is option (2). However, though I’ve explained that to you already, you maintain that it is because of option (1).

    Do you see how your assumptions are wrong? Read above…

    From my perspective, it is more than a bit prideful for you to assume that because someone won’t debate you it must be because they don’t feel they are able to.

    I never said that you feel that you are unable! On the contrary, your proud heart thinks that you are wiser than Solomon! But you are afraid to be disillusioned! You know that God’s Word is powerful, and you know that you don’t have that Sword in your hand. What you rely on is those human false teachings that you follow and which you assume should be strong enough to oppose my arguments. Thus you prefer not to debate so that you may not be disillusioned about the power of your human false teachings.

    Perhaps you should consider the possibility that for some people, you are simply not the kind of personality they prefer to deal with, and that it has nothing to do with your doctrinal position or skills in debate.

    OK. So let’s assume this is why you didn’t answer our argument in this article. Thank you! So, once again, another Mormon came to this weblog and told us how much holier than us he is, and he couldn’t answer our biblical arguments. If anyone thinks he could answer but he didn’t want to answer, then let him show us the arguments that he would use if he would want to debate…

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  19. Ah, and you said:

    One more thing….Louis Midgley is not a LDS leader. He is a LDS scholar, and the editor of the FARMS Review.

    Yes, indeed… It seems that you are not led by the teachings of your scholars, but you only make it seem so when you quote them as a back up for your position…

    As I said before, blind leaders are leading blind people.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

Comments are closed.