How do mormons get around galatians 1 verse 8

[Paul G]

I realize that the KJV uses the words sorrow twice, but the words that sorrow is translated from refer to the lobor of childbirth. The Hebew word`itstsabown means pain, labour, hardship, sorrow, toil. The Hebrew word `etseb means pain, hurt, toil, sorrow, labour, hardship.

Thanks Skylark

I agree with your interpretation from the Hebrew. If I may however refer to the same Hebrew, the word “rabah” which is translated in the text as “multiply” is defined as to be/become great, many, much or numerous (Strongs # 7235). It does not refer to a past quality but one yet to be. Hence Gen 3-16 was not referring to a preceding possible conception, but a future one.

Paul

 

[gort]

Swart quote:

I thought I had implicitly answered this one - but yes.

No, because that verse also pertains to:

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas and let the fowl multiply in the earth.

and it also pertains to Adam, to multiply, be fruitful.

So, did the animals etc. have to transgress/rebel against God also to procreate?

I think not.

Now we need a point of reference. Did pain and suffering exist if the GoE? Obviously not! Adam and Eve were still in the GoE when this edict was handed down. It is prophetic and refers to things to come. In hebrew prophetic tense, things are translated to present tense. I haven't researched enough to know if that is the case here but to assume otherwise, one must assume that suffering existed in the GoE.

Yes, we do need a point of reference, because something has to originally be there in order to be "increased/greatly multiplied."

I think the evidence clearly shows that the ability to procreate/multiply/have chilren was in the Garden. But while they were there, it simply did'nt happen.
As the aminals were to multiply, so was Adam.

It is prophetic and refers to things to come. In hebrew prophetic tense, things are translated to present tense. I haven't researched enough to know if that is the case here but to assume otherwise, one must assume that suffering existed in the GoE.

I would imagine there would have been some discomfort for a woman in the Garden to give childbirth. Think about it, Swart.

As far as it being prophetic? Indeed! A woman goes through much today to bring forth a child!

We also have no idea, nor understanding of reality in the Garden. Man was clearly made to tend the Garden, to enjoy life given to him. Yet have a choice to obey. Or not obey. Same choice christians have today. Penalties are involved.

 

[skylark1]

Thanks Skylark

I agree with your interpretation from the Hebrew. If I may however refer to the same Hebrew, the word “rabah” which is translated in the text as “multiply” is defined as to be/become great, many, much or numerous (Strongs # 7235). It does not refer to a past quality but one yet to be. Hence Gen 3-16 was not referring to a preceding possible conception, but a future one.

Paul

Rabah is also defined by:



1) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous

a) (Qal)

1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)

2) to be or grow great

b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many

c) (Hiphil)

1) to make much, make many, have many

a) to multiply, increase

b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly

c) to increase greatly or exceedingly

2) to make great, enlarge, do much




It appears that it could mean either become great, or increase greatly. It may have been contrasting the labor and pain of childbirth in the future, with the labor of childbirth in the past.

 

[Paul G]

It appears that it could mean either become great, or increase greatly. It may have been contrasting the labor and pain of childbirth in the future, with the labor of childbirth in the past.

True, all these are possible rendering, However in light of how things transpired the future tense interpretation seems to better fit the facts.

 

[Swart]

So, did the animals etc. have to transgress/rebel against God also to procreate?

I think not.

I think not too. This world was created to fulfill the eternal purposes of man. Only man needed to fall, everything else came along for the ride.

Yes, we do need a point of reference, because something has to originally be there in order to be "increased/greatly multiplied."

As I explained, your reading into the text an english construct that is not demonstrably in the text. I haven't had time to do a full analysis yet, but from what I've looked at in the context of prophetic tense - that is what appears to be the case.

In any case, to work with your interpretation, you must assume suffering existed in the GoE. Do you believe that to be the case?

I think the evidence clearly shows that the ability to procreate/multiply/have chilren was in the Garden. But while they were there, it simply did'nt happen.
As the aminals were to multiply, so was Adam.

Actually, no. There is zero evidence for this. Only the commandment was there. They did not reproduce in the GoE - not once.

Let's take the logic further. Say they COULD reproduce and HAD reproduced. What would happen to the 'sinless' children left behind?

I would imagine there would have been some discomfort for a woman in the Garden to give childbirth. Think about it, Swart.

Show me the smoking gun. Where were Adam and Eve's children?

We also have no idea, nor understanding of reality in the Garden. Man was clearly made to tend the Garden, to enjoy life given to him. Yet have a choice to obey. Or not obey. Same choice christians have today. Penalties are involved.

The only plausible alternative I have read is that the forbidden fruit was sexual intercourse and that everything else was a metaphor. I don't completely reject this concept, but it does have several holes in it.

My big objection to the OC concept of the fall of Adam is that I don't believe we are on 'Plan B'. Adam was meant to fall. Christ was foreordained before the creation of the world as our saviour. It is all in accordance with the Plan of Salvation. It wasn't a case of "Ah shucks! Now I've got to get you guys out of this mess!"

 

[gort]

Swart quotes:

In any case, to work with your interpretation, you must assume suffering existed in the GoE. Do you believe that to be the case?

Well, let's try this........

If an accident happened and Adam had an arm cut off, there would be no pain?
Was man made invincible?

This world was created to fulfill the eternal purposes of man. Only man needed to fall, everything else came along for the ride.

I look at it from an opposing view. It is for the eternal purpose of God and His good pleasure. But this is another thread...Always God First!

In any case, to work with your interpretation, you must assume suffering existed in the GoE. Do you believe that to be the case?

There must have been the potential for a woman giving birth in the Garden to experience "some sort of discomfort". Therefore, after eating of the forbidden fruit, that which would have been a discomfort would be "greatly increased".

Actually, no. There is zero evidence for this. Only the commandment was there. They did not reproduce in the GoE - not once.

If God commands something, or blesses something the potential to be able to have it come to fruition/completion is entirely possible. Irregardless of whether they had or did'nt have chilren in the Garden is moot. The animals were blessed to be fruitful and multiply as was Adam.

Show me the smoking gun. Where were Adam and Eve's children?

irrelevant, really.

The only plausible alternative I have read is that the forbidden fruit was sexual intercourse and that everything else was a metaphor. I don't completely reject this concept, but it does have several holes in it.

The fruit was simply fruit. It is in the desiring of, and going against the commandment not to eat of, is where the danger is.

My big objection to the OC concept of the fall of Adam is that I don't believe we are on 'Plan B'. Adam was meant to fall. Christ was foreordained before the creation of the world as our saviour. It is all in accordance with the Plan of Salvation. It wasn't a case of "Ah shucks! Now I've got to get you guys out of this mess!"

I would'nt say Adam was "meant to fall" at all. God did'nt create robots, nor perfect, omnicient beings. Contrary to a popular belief, God certainly gave man a free will/choice scenario.

ANd that is to simply, and freely choose between Him and to love Him for who He is, or not to choose Him. To enjoy Him, and for Him to enjoy us for all eternity.

He is looking for such as these!

Why God has made the angels and man as they are is another thread.

<><

 

[RULDS2?]

Well, let's try this........

If an accident happened and Adam had an arm cut off, there would be no pain?

Was man made invincible?

If I recall, I don't think that there was pain in the Garden. Only after the Fall did God tell Adam that he would suffer, toil, and feel pain.

There must have been the potential for a woman giving birth in the Garden to experience "some sort of discomfort". Therefore, after eating of the forbidden fruit, that which would have been a discomfort would be "greatly increased".

It is possible to greatly increase something from nothing. Also, it also conceivable that God increased what the pain might have been, had something else happened. I am just reading into how the words are presented. They say that to me. I actually believe though, that no pain, no suffering, nor happiness existed in the Garden.

If God commands something, or blesses something the potential to be able to have it come to fruition/completion is entirely possible. Irregardless of whether they had or didn’t have children in the Garden is moot. The animals were blessed to be fruitful and multiply as was Adam.

Did they reproduce, though? Could they, in a perfect world? Also, how many animals were actually in the Garden? The Garden was the Garden OF Eden, not Eden itself. So, it wasn't the whole world. After all, they were cast out of the Garden into the world. Questions, questions, of which, it seems, no answer exists.









I wouldn’t say Adam was "meant to fall" at all. God didn’t create robots, nor perfect, omniscient beings. Contrary to a popular belief, God certainly gave man a free will/choice scenario.



And that is to simply, and freely choose between Him and to love Him for who He is, or not to choose Him. To enjoy Him, and for Him to enjoy us for all eternity.



He is looking for such as these!



Why God has made the angels and man as they are is another thread.



<><[/QUOTE]True, God didn't make robots. But without knowledge of evil, they couldn't truly choose good, now could they? Sure, they could follow God-but it would be blindly, not knowing that another choice awaited them. They did choose the fruit, but did so not knowing that what they were doing was wrong. All they knew was what they were doing was against what they had been told. There is a difference, and I am sure any physiatrist would agree. They were as children. They didn't know right from wrong, only what a parent had told them. They couldn't analyze situations themselves.

 

[RULDS2?]

This world was created to fulfill the eternal purposes of man. Only man needed to fall, everything else came along for the ride.

I look at it from an opposing view. It is for the eternal purpose of God and His good pleasure. But this is another thread...Always God First!

Actually, man was created for the Eternal purposes of God, but the world was created for man.

 

[gort]

RULDS quotes:

If I recall, I don't think that there was pain in the Garden. Only after the Fall did God tell Adam that he would suffer, toil, and feel pain.

Adam would suffer to eek out a living, to toil in the earth. You're sorta talking about 2 different things.

So, if Adam had accidently had his arm cut off in the Garden, he would feel no pain whatsoever?

Did they reproduce, though? Could they, in a perfect world? Also, how many animals were actually in the Garden? The Garden was the Garden OF Eden, not Eden itself. So, it wasn't the whole world. After all, they were cast out of the Garden into the world. Questions, questions, of which, it seems, no answer exists.

Yes, questions questions. So let's work with what we're given!

Sure, they could follow God-but it would be blindly, not knowing that another choice awaited them. They did choose the fruit, but did so not knowing that what they were doing was wrong. All they knew was what they were doing was against what they had been told. There is a difference, and I am sure any physiatrist would agree. They were as children. They didn't know right from wrong, only what a parent had told them. They couldn't analyze situations themselves.

Rebellion against God has its consequences. The angels that fell know that.

Little Johnny, whos daddy works with dynamite told little Johnny one day, "Son, see that shack over there? In it is some really dangerous stuff. Even touching some of it will blow your arm clean off!! Remember I told you this to warn you. Don't ever go in there!

Years later, little Johnny went into the shack.......

anyway, prolly a bad example but you get the idea.

They were as children

Were they? Where is that at?

God made man in His image. That is'nt talking about a physical look.

<><

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Quick question: Are these things actually beliefs in the mormon church

1)God has a physical body

2)God had physical sexual intercourse with Mary

3)If you are a good Mormon then you will become god of a planet just like God is for our planet.

4)#3 is the way that God came to be God of the earth.

 

[Swart]

Well, let's try this........

If an accident happened and Adam had an arm cut off, there would be no pain?
Was man made invincible?

It is my personal belief that man was immortal during the GoE - ergo he could not have injured himself.

This admittedly poses the question "Why did he eat, and how could he eat?". There are two possible answers to this:

1) The 'eating' was metaphoric and referred to some other act.
2) Adam and Eve did not need to eat and this was the first time they had. This also raises the question of the immortality of vegetation, which is far too abstract for this discussion.

It is difficult for us to comprehend our current state, let only an abstracted GoE state, so our musings will be inaccurate at best. Jesus ate after he was resurrected, however I believe he did this to prove he was physically resurrected and not because he needed sustenance.

I have mused long and hard on these questions over the years and trust me, there are theoretical pathways doen this road that really don't end!

I look at it from an opposing view. It is for the eternal purpose of God and His good pleasure. But this is another thread...Always God First!

I agree.

There must have been the potential for a woman giving birth in the Garden to experience "some sort of discomfort". Therefore, after eating of the forbidden fruit, that which would have been a discomfort would be "greatly increased".

I don't believe this is supported by scripture, however it is not discounted. It still leaves the remaining questions.

If God commands something, or blesses something the potential to be able to have it come to fruition/completion is entirely possible. Irregardless of whether they had or did'nt have chilren in the Garden is moot. The animals were blessed to be fruitful and multiply as was Adam.

Again we come to the conundrum. The point is not moot and the corollaries beg for answers. LDS consider this to be a higher law/lesser law thing. After Eve had partaken of the fruit, she was to be cast out of the Garden. Adam was given the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, something he could not do without Eve so he chose willingly to partake of the fruit.

I can present the GoE story in symbolic terms which has more application than the strictly carnal one we are used to addressing and it would have more application.

The fruit was simply fruit. It is in the desiring of, and going against the commandment not to eat of, is where the danger is.

Whether physical or symbolic, it doesn't matter. There are many layers of symbolism and application for the GoE experience.

I would'nt say Adam was "meant to fall" at all. God did'nt create robots, nor perfect, omnicient beings. Contrary to a popular belief, God certainly gave man a free will/choice scenario.

ANd that is to simply, and freely choose between Him and to love Him for who He is, or not to choose Him. To enjoy Him, and for Him to enjoy us for all eternity.

He is looking for such as these!

This is an important lesson of the GoE experience - that all are free to choose liberty and eternal life or to refuse it. God will not force our hand, no matter what the consequence is.

 

[Swart]

1)God has a physical body

True

2)God had physical sexual intercourse with Mary

False. (Although you will find that probably 1% of LDS hold to this opinion)

3)If you are a good Mormon then you will become god of a planet just like God is for our planet.

False. Salvation and exaltation are not about 'being good'. See the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

As for the 'God of your own planet', this is not a doctrine of our church. The only place I have heard this is from anti-mormon literature.

4)#3 is the way that God came to be God of the earth.

This is not a doctrine of the Church, however, it is widely believed to be the case through extrapolations from the 'King Follet Discourse' made by Joseph Smith and statements made by Lorenzo Snow. Both accounts can, however, be reasonably assumed to be referencing Jesus Christ and it surprises me that more people don't realise this.

 

[gort]

Swart quote:

I have mused long and hard on these questions over the years and trust me, there are theoretical pathways doen this road that really don't end!

As the non-existentialist said to the existentialist, "This ain't gonna get smaller than the atom, is it?"



<><

 

[Swart]

As the non-existentialist said to the existentialist, "This ain't gonna get smaller than the atom, is it?"



<><

And as the solipsist said "I'd debate the point with you, but I'd really only be arguing with myself."

 

[Swart]

This is not a doctrine of the Church, however, it is widely believed to be the case through extrapolations from the 'King Follet Discourse' made by Joseph Smith and statements made by Lorenzo Snow. Both accounts can, however, be reasonably assumed to be referencing Jesus Christ and it surprises me that more people don't realise this.

Further to this, I really hope Cleon Skousen never becomes a GA. I'd hate to be put in the position of having to continually explain why the book "The First Two Thousand Years" is not doctrine.

 

[Rescued One]

False. Salvation and exaltation are not about 'being good'. See the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

You are misrepresenting Joseph Smith's religion.

Doctrine & Covenants 132
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

 

[RULDS2?]

Quick question: Are these things actually beliefs in the mormon church

1)God has a physical body

Yes. We believe that. But it is a perfect physical body.

2)God had physical sexual intercourse with Mary

Where do you people get this stuff?? NO. We don't believe this. Through the power of the Holy Ghost did Mary concieve.

3)If you are a good Mormon then you will become god of a planet just like God is for our planet.

NO. This isn't taught.

4)#3 is the way that God came to be God of the earth.

Not taught either.

Only #1 is correct. Everything else is what people who do not know our religion say we believe in.

 

[Swart]

You are misrepresenting Joseph Smith's religion.

NOW I've heard everything.

 

[drstevej]

Where do you people get this stuff?? NO. We don't believe this. Through the power of the Holy Ghost did Mary concieve.

Why from Brother Brigham among others... that's where.

"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

That Journal of Discourses is some mighty interesting reading. Wonder if the Marriott could have a copy of that in their hotel rooms.

And for a more modern 1988 source...

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 6).

And correct me if I am wrong, her published this while he was President of you church.

 

[Koontzy]

Yes. We believe that. But it is a perfect physical body.

Where do you people get this stuff?? NO. We don't believe this. Through the power of the Holy Ghost did Mary concieve.

NO. This isn't taught.
Not taught either.

Only #1 is correct. Everything else is what people who do not know our religion say we believe in.

Ok then why was I told by some missionaries that you do believe the saying " as god once was man is, as god is man may become." they told me that they believe they will become gods??

I asked them all thsoe questions and they agreed.....

Thanks