Uncategorized

Relations Between Women and Devils

As I near completion of a second read-through of The Sealed Book of “Mauricio”—to make notes on a few of its false doctrines—it has me thinking about a few of the complex concepts I’ve meddled with from time-to-time; namely, the idea of extra-terrestrials having sexual relations with mortals.

Although I always believed this doctrine to have been sufficiently put to rest by the the inspired translation of Genesis through Joseph Smith in The Book of Moses, I’ve entertained the idea that Satan may have had a literal role in having “seed” belonging to him on the earth.

I’ve mentioned the “serpent seed” doctrine a few times on this blog, so I feel it’s necessary to give another take on it.

The idea of it is nothing new, yet I seem to notice more and more people adopting it as a bonafide truth, accepting it as one of the mysteries of God.

Perhaps because religious people these days are already viewed as crazy for merely believing in the Bible at all, Christians are less afraid of believing something that in previous times would have put them outside of cultural and religious norms.

Those that take the Bible literally are becoming increasingly rare—even within mainstream Christian churches—and because of this, it opens the door for radical interpretations to take hold. Why wouldn’t there be more eyebrow-raising truths to uncover if everyone’s eyebrows are already raised?

The Book of Enoch has played a huge role in the inner circles of truth-seekers, vindicating these doctrine in the eyes of those who accept the text to have been the writings to which Jude referred to in the New Testament.

Although I would love to concede the modern-day compilations known as The Books of Enoch to in fact be genuine, it is far from likely. Portions of it may indeed be remnants of something Enoch once said or wrote, but the text being passed around today is contaminated beyond repair, usually containing segments with which there is no evidence of them having existed more than a couple-hundred years.

I’m not advocating that we trust what historians and archaeologists have to say about religious texts, but to reinforce why the book already seems suspect. Regardless of where it came from or how it came into the public domain, these so-called books of Enoch possess an off-color spirit to them.

Something’s just not right.

I find that same spirit accompanying the writings of Mauricio Berger. And I don’t just say that because of the obvious similarities, but because each were written by someone intimately familiar with scripture—and not only that, they each somehow reveal mysteries that could very well be a form of (albeit distorted) truth.

I recently wrote about Christopher Nemelka and his attempt to write scripture. Does his Sealed Portion have the same distinct false spirit as Mauricio? Not quite. Although Nemelka is just as acquainted (perhaps even more so) with the scriptures, he fails entirely to reveal anything we might expect to find in scripture not yet known to us.

I suppose I should thank Mauricio for helping me hone my discernment in realizing that The Book of Enoch, as it stands, should be ignored and avoided; and that all the interesting things I found and highlighted within it were more-likely to have been inspired by the enemy than by God.

It’s always worth evaluating the teachings and ideas of false teachers to see what new thoughts come to mind – to get us thinking about things we haven’t yet considered—but I think it’s worth keeping in mind what Jesus said of the devil: “There is no truth in him.” (John 8:44)

The books claiming to originate from Enoch have been compiled from a handful of different texts. This may be why some of it seems to have truth. The Sealed Book of Mormon, on the other hand, emerged through a singular effort.

Hardly anybody took Christopher Nemelka’s scripture seriously. To this day they still maintain a near-zero influence on anyone.

But this time around we’re witnessing the start of something much different. Many thoughtful and devout individuals are buying what Mauricio is selling. People are genuinely believing that The Sealed Book of Mormon is the very thing it claims to be.

While Christopher failed right from the start, this attempt happens to be quite believable.

However, there are glaringly obvious contradictions to the holy scriptures, leaving me to conclude that whatever truth it contains has already been revealed and whatever “new truths” it offers have not been inspired by God.

And even if Satan does teach nine truths to tell one lie, the distorted versions of truth provided to us by Mauricio are not God’s will. We shouldn’t be bothered with any of it until God sees fit to make the deeper things known unto us through a true prophet who unfolds the mysteries of God in complete and total accuracy.

To return back to the point of this article, I’ll provide now one of the false doctrines from my upcoming list of falsehoods contained in Mauricio’s Sealed Book of Mormon.

In these days, however, some of the holy sentinel angels, who were of the watchers class, who were designated from the beginning as heralds of God in regard to earthly affairs; and therefore they could materialize in carnal bodies, in the likeness of men, and to infiltrate among the sons and daughters of Adam, under the influence of Anaquiel, the person responsible for the plot that took place among the vigilantes who were corrupted, known among his fellows by Azazel, being the principal of those who abandoned their position that they obtained in heaven, they came to build for themselves great refuges, in which some of them, under the influence of Satan, had intercourse with the daughters of men, and in it have they brought forth seed; the giants of the land.” (S-Moses 4:28)

The Book of Moses explains perfectly well that it is the “sons of men” rather than the “sons of God” who married the women who bore giants. (Moses 8:13-18) The Book of Enoch theology (adopted by Mauricio) is to believe the sons of God to be the angels, but the Book of Moses counteracts this misunderstanding. The sons of God are not angels or “watchers” but descendants of Adam who hearken to God.

In regards to this, a commentator online, “Mike,” stated: “The JST changes them to sons of men rather than sons of God [but] it doesn’t provide clarity on why the daughters of men are considered to have sold themselves. It says because the sons of men will not hearken to His voice, but why are the daughters called out then?”

[Reference: https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/update-on-the-brazil-deception-part-3-bob-moore-provides-clarity-as-to-where-he-stands/#comment-7158 ]

I find this comment a good example of someone trying to stretch for some deeper meaning that can justify an odd belief. It’s worth noting that after God “calls out” the daughters he then says his anger is kindled at the sons of men, not the daughters. (Moses 8:15)

To offer a personal opinion, I believe the passage is an allusion to the sons of men engaging with polygamy. “They took them wives even as they chose.”

This indicates they have already taken wives as they choose taking others. The first case of polygamy begins with the descendants of Cain (Moses 5:44) so why wouldn’t this practice have continued up until the flood?

When it’s said the women sell themselves, I believe the most correct definition for this is, “to yield or give for a certain consideration.” These women yielded to their spouses desire to take multiple wives, considering it to be the right thing—to increase the capacity of their spouse to multiply more greatly in the earth—even though it sells out the celestial-law of monogamy they deserve.

This brings us to Eve. I believe she did a similar thing as the daughters of men. Of course, she didn’t have Adam take multiple wives; and no, she didn’t commit adultery with Satan—but she yielded to Satan by considering the fruit of the tree to be the best option for multiplying and replenishing the earth.

This is exactly what Sarai and Abram did. They sold out by believing they needed to (unlawfully) have Abram bear children through another woman to fulfill the commandment.

Adam and Eve, and Abram and Sarai, lacked faith that God would provide the way.

Yes the scriptures do inform us that if Adam and Eve did not partake of the fruit, they would not have had children. (2 Ne 2:23)

But was this the only way?

Is sin or transgression always part of God’s plan? Does it have to be?

When people fall deep into sin and then return back to living the commandments, they pridefully assume that because of their mistakes they are stronger and better than they would have been had they not sinned.

I’m a better person than I would have been because of my mistakes.”

In one respect, this is certainly true. Because they understand more fully the grace and holiness of Jesus Christ, those in need of serious repentance can become even more reliant and devoted to God.

But does this mean they needed to sin to know how devoted they are supposed to be? Could God not get somebody to that point without them previously living a life of sin?

The answer is of course no; God can do anything.

Sinning doesn’t have to occur for God to perfect us. To suggest it is would be to glorify sin as a necessity. We should just keep screwing up if in the end it will have just made us better and better!

The amazing thing about God is that he makes all things work together for good to them that love him. So whether we make mistakes or not, all things—good or bad—come together for good.

So when Adam and Even partake of the fruit, it works together for good because God has a program to suit each and every scenario.

This doesn’t negate the scripture that states they would not have children if they did not fall. [I’ll return to this in a moment.]

If any of this is ringing true, you might begin forming a new picture of how things might have gone in other worlds. In The Book of Moses, God revealed that he has created millions upon millions of “earths like this” and that “among all the workmanship of [God’s] hands there has not so great wickedness as among [our] brethren.” (7:30, 36)

This doesn’t necessarily mean other earths were void of this great wickedness, but I do find it compelling to believe we may be living in the most sinful version of God’s great program to bring to pass eternal life to his children. Those that inherit celestial glory from this earth may be surrounded by the most wickedness possible, the degree to which is not always being experienced on other earths.

This worldview actually makes sense out of a lot of common concerns regarding the inherent depravity of all aspects of our human history and the distressing issues that plague the world today. But this article isn’t to placate those concerns or minimize the implications of God allowing these behaviors. If individuals don’t have faith in God because of a terrible world, believing it to have only occurred here doesn’t make a difference.

I bring up this possibility because there may be something different happening here that doesn’t always need to happen.

Again, let me re-state my thesis: sin and transgression doesn’t have to occur for individuals to find salvation through the gospel.

So when we understand Jesus Christ having been crucified for sins, this doesn’t just mean he took the justice of God for the sins we commit. His death on the cross was also for the sins we won’t commit because of the power of that sacrifice.

Take a moment to consider that the way this world operates may not be the way things operate on other earths.

The gospel is always the same, but the way in which man comes to know and embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ may have variations throughout an endless creation of God. I don’t think every earth is the same. What if each and every creation comes together as one perfect whole?

What one world lacks, another might exceed. The opposition in all things may supersede throughout the expanse of all creations, things relating to one another in ways we currently have no reference point for tying together. This world appears to have more bad than good. This could be a result of seeing through a glass darkly—not able to discern what should be an equal amount of good—but it could also be truth…this earth might literally have a larger portion of evil compared to righteousness.

Perhaps another earth fills in this inconsistency, having a portion of evil that equates with the degree of righteousness surrounding ours.

It takes faith to believe in Christ amidst a world of sin, but wouldn’t it also take faith to believe in the necessity of being saved through Christ not having sinned ourselves?

Neither of these negate the centrality of the atonement. Both avenues require faith.

*

William Branham was my all-time favorite Bible-teacher. He’d always get me thinking deeper. He was a believer in seeing the scriptures through a new lens, through a vantage point that was not yet apparent. Accepting all churches to be apostate, there wasn’t a single thing worth reconsidering if the common beliefs of Christianity were spawned out of contrived denominations.

Because professing Christians did not exercise the fruits associated with true believers in Christ, Branham determined that the truths of God were not being understood correctly; and that Satan, the god of this world, (2 Cor 4:4) had obscured an accurate understanding of the Bible by creating the false and contradictory churches that compose Christianity.

Although he is accepted to be a false prophet or whatever…he actually understood a great deal more than those who commonly dismiss him as a heretic.

He influenced me a great deal, mostly in positive ways; but sadly, in my eyes he had legitimized the serpent-seed doctrine. Although I never took it as literally as most often will, I did find it worth noting that in Genesis there is only one act of sex mentioned between Adam and Eve that results in the births of both Cain and Abel.

When Eve conceives Seth, the text makes it sound like it’s the second time that Adam and Eve are now having conjugal relations. Three children from only two mentions of Adam having “known” Eve.

The Book of Moses actually counters this just as it countered the doctrine of angels sleeping with mortals. But the narrative of Moses allows it to be read in a non-chronological order. It still leaves room to wonder just as the commentator Mike still wonders if there’s more to the picture with the daughters bearing giants on the earth.

This room-to-wonder, however, does not vindicate the false doctrine, but points us in a better direction. It’s expounding what Genesis meant, while still retaining the vague manner of the original text. There wasn’t anything actually wrong with Genesis; we just weren’t smart enough to get it. The oddity of its passages were tweaked to give us another chance.

For example, did we need the Joseph Smith translation to tell us that God wasn’t the one who hardened Pharaoh’s heart? Did we need to know that Paul didn’t want us to literally “leave” the principles and doctrines of Christ? Would it really have been that difficult to piece those things together correctly?

Joseph Smith translated passages of the Bible with clarifications and changes, but these changes are not provided in The Book of Mormon when its prophets included the writings that are, more often than not, just as they stand in the “King James”-Bible before Joseph Smith made clarifications. So was the prophet and seer really fixing “errors”? Or was God using Joseph Smith to restate his word according to our language and understanding?—the way God speaks unto the children of men? (2 Ne 31:3)

God might have been tweaking the language due to a false human understanding that belonged to the traditions of our fathers.

[Quick note: This doesn’t mean there wasn’t plain and precious truths that were in fact taken out of the Book of the Lamb of God that Joseph Smith was an instrument in restoring.]

If we didn’t have the Joseph Smith Translation, would we not have just concluded:

-God hardened Pharaoh’s heart because he didn’t choose to soften it

-Paul wants us to leave the principles of Christ in a position to use them every day

-The sons of God who married the daughters were not the actual sons of God; they just professed themselves to be and were known by that proclamation

Read the scriptures with an eye single to the glory of God and you will understand the tone of what vernacular is used.

So when Eve bore two children out of only one act of sexual relations, was God really trying to tell us that she’d had sex with the devil?

Now let me admit that if not for the Joseph Smith Translation it’s pretty unlikely I would have been able to figure this one out, so I hope nobody misconstrues what I’ve said to suggest the JST is irrelevant.

The most likely interpretation of Genesis would be to conclude Cain and Abel to be twins, but JST clarifies that Eve doesn’t just bear Abel afterwards but conceives and then bears him, so the birth and conception both occurred after Cain is born.

Following the narrative without the serpent-seed bias, it is actually the act of sex between Adam and Eve that conceives Cain.

It the act of seemingly no sex which relates to Abel.

If there’s any truth behind what serpent-seed thinking individuals are going on about, it’s this: a divine conception did occur, but it was Abel not Cain.

Abel was the supernatural aspect that Genesis may have been cryptically hinting towards.

If true, we learn some deeper truths.

Returning back to my thoughts on the possibly-unnecessary act of transgression, does Abel’s miraculous birth teach us that Adam and Eve could have eventually had children without their fall?

When we are said to be “conceived in sin” might that indicate that sex is a byproduct of the fall and not a definitive principle for multiplying on the earth?

But before I’m accused of sex-shaming, let’s review two passages from Moses: one that preludes Cain; and another that preludes Seth.

And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain. (5:16)

And Adam hearkened unto the voice of God, and called upon his sons to repent. And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son, and he called his name Seth. […] He begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image. (6:1, 10)

Although Adam was calling upon God during Cain’s birth in chapter 5, they were not yet converted. But after Adam is converted and baptized by fire—these things confirmed upon him by an holy ordinance at the end of the chapter—he is then hearkening to God’s voice during the arrival of Seth, and this results in a son who is after his own likeness, the likeness of a son of God…for Adam is, by that point, a son of God. (Moses 6:22)

When Adam knows his wife “again” it is not the second act; it is knowing her again after being born of God, making it distinct from the previous acts of having known her.

The proof of this is that Moses 5:2 actually indicates that Adam and Eve had already borne many sons and daughters before Cain; so when Adam knows Eve in chapter 6, the inclusion of the word “again” is to signify this transition, not to signify that only two acts of knowing have taken place.

*

If I have read too far into any of this and delved into terrain I shouldn’t be, it’s all been in the good intention of having disproved a false doctrine in the most productive manner I can think of doing.

I hope I’ve now replaced the serpent-seed doctrine with something closer to the truth, rather than simply dismissing it.

A pet peeve of mine is when people say truth-seekers are, “looking beyond the mark,” for simply trying to make sense of what has been hitherto unexplained. I understand why people believe in doctrines such as angels having sex with humans. The scriptures have many mysteries.

Believing a false doctrine isn’t always a sign of someone who has idols in their heart and wants to embrace a toxic worldview. Usually it’s a sign of someone that takes the scriptures seriously enough to believe they actually mean something more than just words on paper.

If there is something deeper happening with the births of Cain and Abel, I hope people espousing the serpent-seed doctrine will instead consider this a more-likely possibility.

But am I completely convinced Abel was conceived without sex? Can I be certain that the whole of the human family could have been brought into the world in an entirely different manner? Is this world really the most wicked of all earths? Is it possible that Adam and Eve didn’t actually need to partake of the fruit?

I don’t actually know.

But Seth was promised to be the chosen posterity of the Lord for a reason. And that reason must have been because Adam was converted to God and therefore able to have a child that was after his own likeness which was after the likeness of God. There’s a reason the scriptures tell us Seth was a perfect man. (D&C 107:43) Yet does this mean he never sinned at all?

Certain scriptures have serious implications that are worth consideration. But still, let’s not be too sure of anything.

There is a chosen seed and a serpent’s seed, but neither derive from mythologies involving devils or angels mixing with humans.

The seed of Satan was a result of human beings that, regardless to having been born into a fallen world, chose not to call upon God and repent. Those that did not hearken to God loved Satan (Moses 5:28) and it is ultimately the transgression of not loving and serving God which made man sensual and devilish. (D&C 20:20) This potential, depraved nature of man did not require anything more than this transgression.

Adam and Eve may have made a mistake like the daughters who sold themselves. But God’s anger was not kindled towards them—perhaps because they did not actually choose to love Satan. They erred in judgment and assumed they were doing what God wanted them to do.

Even Cain, who already loved Satan, was told by God that if he did well he would still be accepted. (Moses 5:23)

So the genealogy of the family of God has nothing to do with literal bloodlines. We are adopted into it by becoming the sons of God through the power of the gospel.

Those sanctified in Zion will have children grow up without sin unto salvation (D&C 45:58) like Adam and Eve must have experienced raising Seth. In the meanwhile, all of us are clearly in the same position that Adam and Eve were after they got expelled from the garden. They ceased not to call upon God. Let’s do the same.

-G.azelem

6 replies »

  1. I’m not sure I could express the entirety of my thoughts in a comment section. However, I’m not sure if you mistook that snippet from Genesis with the serpent-seed idea. I wasn’t focused on Adam & Eve and their direct offspring so much as what is being implied by the original text in Genesis. I’ve watched Chuck Missler’s series on Genesis and he points out those verses as really defining and making sense of the rest of the Bible. I’ve also watched talks by Michael Heiser and also read the book ‘A Remnant Shall Return’ by LDS author Michael Rush. They all have different takes on that passage about the sons of God.

    I don’t know if any of them are correct, but they offer interesting insights. What struck me the most was Chuck Missler’s statement of how much the rest of the Bible falls into place when you correctly understand what was happening in the days of Noah and how that knowledge is applicable to our days. You understand why the Israelites were commanded to commit genocide against the giants that occupied the promised land. There are many passages in the Old and New Testaments that just fit into place.

    With the JST, I’m not able to understand those passages in the same context. I now have to search for another reason why those events took place.

    Your idea that it is referring to polygamy is another interesting take. I’m not sure, though, how that explains the giants. Perhaps the practice of polygamy will greatly increase in these days to fulfill that prophecy, it’s certainly something to keep an eye on. I could even be persuaded that it’s the case that both events were happening – the original Bible focused on one aspect and the JST on another.

    In the meantime, I keep my mind open to see the other points of view. I continue to study the Word and search out the truths that God’s provided us.

    Like

    • Hi Mike,

      I’m very grateful you took the time to visit and read.

      I did understand that you weren’t referring to Adam and Eve; I just wanted to use your comment as an example of how the Book of Moses negates these peculiar doctrines and yet it still keeps the door open for another deep concept. I hope you don’t feel misconstrued; and if so, let me know and I can remove the inclusion of your comment within this article. I originally intended on replying to the comment directly but it evolved into something much larger. I’d been meaning to talk about Adam and Eve and your comment inspired it. Didn’t mean to throw you into the mix without reason. I apologize if it came off that way.

      Anyway, that’s a great thing to keep in mind, Mike…what was happening in Noah’s day will happen in ours.

      I think giants on the earth is still a mystery! One thought that comes to me now is the reality that humans will adapt as a species according to their human will. Usually, females are attracted to large and muscular men, and this is reported to be because they subconsciously desire their offspring to have those same traits, leading the mothers to have less reason to worry for their children’s safety and capacity to succeed as adults. Seeking strength rather than righteousness is part of an innate survival instinct that controls a lot of what we do– whether we realize it or not. That the daughters chose to marry strong sons of men (rather than the holy and peaceful men of God) to bear strong children may have been a result in there being a more genetically-“superior” human that the Bible called giants. That’s just off the top of my head, though. Not sure if I’ll feel differently about it tomorrow.

      Polygamy itself is also part of a biological factor. Males desire sex to ensure the survival of its species, leading them to desire multiple partners for a greater chance to leave a bigger mark of themselves on the earth. Females desire a strong partner to bear them able-bodied children. Both subconsciously do this to prevent extinction. These intuitions may combine and adapt man into something larger than the image of God and therefore be considered as giants.

      Thanks for the thought-provoking stuff!

      Like

  2. No worries, I think this clears up that my comment launched a larger discussion by you. I am still trying to figure out exactly what we should learn about the days of Noah. I can see a whole lot of implications, but it is still speculation based on our incomplete understanding of scripture.

    I used to share your view (if I understand you correctly) that the JST can be used as the final word when looking for clarity in the scriptures. I’ve actually moved away from that thinking lately. I believe the JST is inspired and provides us extraordinary benefits. However, I don’t think it supplants all the Biblical studies and those who go back to the original texts and languages to get a greater understanding of the original meaning. My current belief is that the JST provides key insights of select topics that God wanted us to have clarified at this time. I believe there are still other topics that we can get further clarification on.

    Joseph Smith was forbidden to preach from the new translation until the church published it. The church never published it during his lifetime, so we don’t know what or how he would have been inspired to teach from it. We are currently using it without a commandment from God to do so! But how can we not when it has such value to us?

    I look at Biblical scholars and instances where they find an incorrect or poor translation of the original text in the KJV and the JST does not correct it. How do I explain this? I believe that the JST corrected portions that God wanted corrected at that time. It wasn’t intended or needed to fix everything. The more we study the word and go back to the original, the more insights and knowledge we can have. The JST wasn’t intended to stop us from continuing to investigate and study the Bible.

    From this point of view, I look at Genesis 6 differently. The JST provides a different narrative, but it leaves us with the puzzle of where these giants came from. The KJV does the same, though it appears to link the results to the offspring of daughters of men and sons of God. If we go down the path of considering that the sons of God (Watchers, fallen angels) were creations of God not intended for this world, then we get a corruption of God’s creation on this earth with God’s creations intended for some other place, whatever or where ever that may be.

    Now the passages about Noah being perfect in his generations and that all flesh was corrupted take on a different meaning. So many other passages in the rest of the scriptures have an explanation. If it was just about polygamy or marrying unrighteous people, then we don’t understand why the genocide of those giants occupying the promised land. We don’t really get a good grasp on how the last days will be like the days of Noah. Isn’t there enough wickedness in the world today? What else are we missing?

    But it is a lot of speculation, and it could be something different is meant there. I just found so many other problems with Mauricio’s work that I didn’t see his inclusion of the Watchers from the Book of Enoch as that egregious. It does appear to me that he put that in there, as he does many other parts, to try to influence and sway certain people, in this case proponents of the Book of Enoch. I don’t take his inclusion to lend credibility to that book and that account in it. Nor do I take it to take away from it either.

    Like

    • I wouldn’t conclude the JST to be the final word, or that it was a literal translation of the original texts…I more so see it as a tool that God gave to veer us in a better direction.

      “Was God using Joseph Smith to restate his word according to our language and understanding?—the way God speaks unto the children of men? (2 Ne 31:3) God might have been tweaking the language due to a false human understanding that belonged to the traditions of our fathers.”

      Again, thanks for reading! I’ve got another post coming up where I go point-by-point with Mauricio’s book. I’ll perhaps point out the things you find all the more egregious 😉
      G.

      Like

  3. Another very thought-provoking article G.

    In it you said-

    “Again, let me re-state my thesis: sin and transgression doesn’t have to occur for individuals to find salvation through the gospel.”

    In that statement, are you using the term “salvation” to mean general salvation as in saved in a kingdom of glory, OR are you using it to refer to salvation in the highest kingdom?

    Does the gospel plan categorically or selectively require the use of agency in acquiring salvation?

    Do those that “grow up without sin unto salvation” experience temptation without ever succumbing to it or are they simply protected from temptation?

    Is it necessary to sin and transgress so that contradiction and opposition can be experienced?

    “and it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for it they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet”

    Like

    • It seems like no matter how many times I review an article before posting, I still leave out an important piece of context that will support what I mean.

      I definitely didn’t mean to say that temptation was not part of salvation. It is the act of giving into temptation that I believe does not need to occur.

      Those that grow up without sin WILL experience temptation when the devil is loosed for a little season. Even the sanctified can fall from grace! Nonetheless, will the elect not teach their children these things for one thousand years to prepare them to use their agency and not succumb, not even once? It’s likely that these children will retain salvation because they have been endowed with knowledge. So I see this scenario as a perfect example of what I’m trying to say. We don’t need to transgress the commandments to know good from evil. We can learn what is good without ever succumbing to the temptations of the devil.
      G.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.