Mormon Dilemma 107

01 December

Oppositions and Contradictions

Ensign, May 2010, pg. 79; ’Men are, that they might have joy’ (2 Nephi 2:25) and ‘for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things’ (2 Nephi 2:11) are not contradictory; they are complementary.” – Elder Donald L. Hallstrom, “Turn to the Lord”

An article in the Ensign grabbed my attention written by Elder Hallstrom called “Turn to the Lord”.  Mr. Hallstrom’s speech/article ranked right up there with some of the most confusing subject matters I’ve read in a long time.

As a Mormon it’s hard enough to stay focused with the LDS self imposed contradictory teachings, but when you add an extra caveat of trying to change the meanings of simple English words…well, it just makes a bad situation worse.  But hold on because we have both scenarios taking place in this one article so let’s take a look at it – just as the Church tells its members to do – line by line, precept upon precept!

Here is part of what he said in his article;

“Ensign, May 2010, pg. 79; ’Men are, that they might have joy’ (2 Nephi 2:25) and ‘for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things’ (2 Nephi 2:11) are not contradictory; they are complementary.” – Elder Donald L. Hallstrom, “Turn to the Lord”

Mr. Hallstrom was trying to convey to his audience that when the unimaginable happens in life it’s time for you to turn to God and not turn away.  He shared the stories of two opposite reactions to similar tragedies within families and tried to explain that having tragedy in your life is all part of God’s plan.  Using two verses from the Book of Mormon to tie his theory together made me think this Mormon god is malevolent and anything but endearing.

Additionally, the two verses he used in the Book of Mormon have to be one of the biggest lies in all of Mormonism.  The god of this book has no resemblance to the God of the Bible yet Mormons have been tricked into believing this gospel that was delivered by an angel of light.

There’s not one single verse in all of the Bible suggesting that God would entice mankind to sin.  To suggest such a thing is to blaspheme the Lord.

James 1:13; “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”

God did not need man to sin in order for His “plan of happiness” to go into effect –

He didn’t tell Adam and Eve to sin and then have kids.  Rather, take a look at the sequence of events in the Garden of Eden and you’ll find that God told Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, and then He told them both to have kids.

Genesis 1:17; “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Genesis 1:24; “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Genesis 2:6-7; “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened…”

Now let’s take a look at Mr. Hallstrom’s original theory here.  He said; “’Men are, that they might have joy’ (2 Nephi 2:25) and ‘for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things’ (2 Nephi 2:11) are not contradictory; they are complementary.

Why would God want to trick you or not bless you when He’s clearly giving directions of how He wants you to behave in life?

The text Mr. Hallstrom used in the Book of Mormon clearly states these two ideas are opposed to each other.  Most definitely this god is teaching his creation that all things must have an opposition in life.

Why would this man say that they’re complimentary and not opposing if he didn’t want to confuse his audience?  What he said totally disagrees with the sacred cannon of Mormonism!

And for the record, believing there has to be an opposition in everything is accepting the false doctrine that New Agers espouse.  Yin-yang is not part of God’s plan.  God doesn’t change His mind.  He’s not a good god one day and dark the next.  This is known as dualism and it’s heretical.

Ensign, May 2010, pg. 79; ’Men are, that they might have joy’ (2 Nephi 2:25) and ‘for it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things’ (2 Nephi 2:11) are not contradictory; they are complementary.” – Elder Donald L. Hallstrom, “Turn to the Lord”

2 Nephi 2:25;Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

2 Nephi 2:11;For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Mormon Dilemma 107”

  1. Tyler December 1, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    What a perverse twisting of a true concept.
    Opposition in all things is an essential part of existence. Just like for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you never knew what it is to be sad, how could you ever know and appreciate what it means to be happy? Im not even Mormon and I know that you are twisting what this guy said. All this Christian rhetoric against Mormons is sickening. Can’t wait to see your article about the Jewish dilemma. Or the Negro problem. What would Jesus do, right?

  2. shg December 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    God is Not a god of confustion. God of the Bible loves His people and wants them to love Him. It is not in His nature to trick or deceive us.

    • lifeafterministry December 1, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

      Re: Sue – Amen sister!
      I can’t imagine living my life in fear all the time wondering what shoe might drop next for the god of Mormonism. Life is to be spent fellowshipping with God and enjoying His presence each moment. If we have to spend that much time trying to figure out the different meanings in a sentence that don’t really mean what they say or say what they mean it takes our time away from God and defeats what He says in John 8:32 – Peace I leave with you.
      Re Tyler: The “n…” problem? Really? And as for true concepts of reactions…God is not Newton’s Law my friend and He doesn’t operate within the parameters of a discovery that’s been explained. His plan, His design isn’t to trick you or to make you feel pain. What kind of god would that be? You’ve been lied to so much in Mormonism that you’ve taken a lesser view of yourself and what you’re truly worth. God’s intent is never to degrade, but to uplift and cherish. We’re praying for you!
      Michelle

  3. shematwater December 1, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

    MICHELLE

    I find it interesting that you assume Tyler is Mormon when he specifically states that he is not. It appears you don’t really give a lot of attention to what people say.
    And for the record, this article is more confusing than anything the leaders of the church have ever said, and it does do a brilliant job of twisting the true doctrine of the church to fit your skewed ideas of it.

    You said “The text Mr. Hallstrom used in the Book of Mormon clearly states these two ideas are opposed to each other.”
    I can only assume that you mean the Book of Mormon teaches that the two phrases are opposed to each other (though your wording is confusing). So, taking this assumption it must also follow that you have no real understanding of the Book of Mormon, as it clearly teaches that these two concepts are in harmony with each other.
    God created man to have joy, but man cannot have joy unless there is an opposing force in sorrow. It explains this rather well in 2 Nephi chapter 2, and anyone reading that chapter can come to no other conclusion unless they force it in their own minds.

    Now, I agree with you that God does not tempt, nor does he desire pain and suffering. However, he understands that without pain and suffering there can be no joy and happiness. As such he does not shield us from the one so that we are able to experience the other.
    It is not real love to protect to the point that a person can not know joy because they have felt no pain, and I am grateful to my Heavenly Father for understanding this.

    There is no fear for those who truly understand God and his ways, for he is perfectly predictable, blessing the righteous and punishing the wicked; and he will always warn us before he acts in anyway.

    TYLER

    It is nice to see an discerning person on these threads. I hope you stick around.

  4. CamdenC December 3, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    Tyler:

    When you say the “Jewish Dilemna” do you mean the fact that the Mormons refer to people outside of their church as Gentiles?

    Do you mean the “Negro Problem” within the Mormon Church? You know that one, don’t you? That up until 1978, “negroes” couldn’t hold the Mormon priesthood or go into one of their temples because they had the curse of the black skin. Or in the Book of Mormon when the dark skinned Lamenites turned from their wickedness, the Mormon god lightened their skin.

    The Mormon rhetoric that is sickening is that Joseph Smith would say that God and Jesus told him that all “sects and denominations of Christianity were apostate”.

    Then the LDS Church would go on to say that “all Catholics and Protestants are the “whore of Babylon” and Baptism and the Lord’s Supper performed outside of the Mormon church, highly offends God.

    We are just trying to defend ourselves…

    Shem:

    So you are saying that the leaders of the church say confusing things? Since you say that Michelle’s post is MORE confusing than anything the leaders have ever said…

    She is just posting on a blog, the leaders of the church are speaking “doctrine”.

  5. shematwater December 3, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    CAMDEN

    To say that she is more confusing is not to say that the leaders are in any way confusing, at least not to me. After all, if their confusion factor is zero than any confusion factor on the part of Michelle would be more confusing.

    However, my point was that her blog caused more confusion in my mind than I can understandably see being caused by the words of any leader of the church. I am very willing to admit that they have said some thing that can be confusing to those who do not know our doctrine, but that does not mean that they are themselves confusing. Just as calculus is actually very simple to those who have a firm grasp on math, but are easily confusing to those who do not.
    In comparing the words of LDS leaders to the words of this blog I see more potential for confusion in the blog than in any of the leaders words, both for those unfamiliar and for those well versed.

  6. shematwater December 3, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    Just a second note: If you want to defend yourselves you should try tactics that do not use deception or the intentional twisting of the words of other people. It would go over a lot better.

Leave a Reply