BDRichardson

I'll "sum up" after a few more answers, and start to develop an idea for an argument/answer/reason...

I've just had another thought related to the reverse logic. What about a reason FOR for every reason against? (Starting with Feddes' AGAINST's): AGAINSTs -- FORs Work (material gain) -- Charity (material loss/sacrifice) Recreation (fun) -- Sacrifice (work, but service, something something?) Extra chores (personal gain, to-dos) -- ? Lack of sociality -- Accepting imperfections of others, understanding, growth? Problems (marriage,divorce,embarrased) -- Not hiding self-imperfections, humility, ? Nothing important happens there (apathy?) -- Creation mentality (anti-apathy?) FORs -- AGAINSTs God says so (calls, inspired) -- I know best (pride, anti-inspiration, intellect) Community of believers (as above, plus teaching, fellowship, peer/leadership advice) -- lack of sociality (loner syndrome, lone tree, dealing with problems alone) Ordinances (Sactrament, prayers, Authority?) -- No ordinances (heathenism? I don't need anyone ) Just a thought... Still thinking... BDR

Nice... #7: Protection. Faster progress, insight (synergism, service opportunities).

(Grumble grumble grumble)... Ya, but I want it now...! Ha! #6 Because it grows into something tangible (fruits).

Thanks all... keep 'em coming if anyone has anything else. I already found the how-to-stay link and forwarded it to the subject. I've also come to the conclusion that the best answer is: #2 God wants me to which was mentioned in the ldsmedia link. Nothing else seems to cut it, eh? I like answer #3 if they want the blessings from such Someone else, on another forum provided that thought, too. Not a bad reason, either. Kind of like paying tithing as fire insurance, right? The steps listed above in the 1st response are also quite deep, too. one leads to the other. Jesus to authority, etc. Probably the closest thing to a correct logical argument. Do you believe in God? Jesus? Authority? = Church. #4 challenge: find something better A slightly different tack to the why NOT church approach... I always challenge people to question their testimony because "there's no witness until after the trial of your faith." Right? But still... a decent answer would be great. But... in retrospect that's nigh unto proof which can't happen and allow faith to be exercised. So... maybe the above is sufficient. Hmmm.... Still thinking... BDR

Sound logic. Reason #1: Because it's true. Or rather, because you think it's true. Meaning... it really happened. God exists, Jesus paid for sin, etc. And... this sentiment is spoken of by our leaders Pres. Hinckley said the same thing. Everything hinges on JS and what he claimed. Good answer. Thanks! BDR P.S. Devil's advocate would say: Because I feel it's true vs. Because I feel it's not true.

I thought I'd try to write an article or something called: "Why Church?" And did some prelim. research with Google for that phrase. David Feddes started on a tack that I thought was an interesting approach. Reverse logic. Answer a question with a question. Some folks hate that tack, but ... (here's a link to his radio broadcast: Why Church) I thought it might be a good eliminate the reasons why NOT church, and I might be left with reasons FOR church. So... why NOT church? Feddes gives lots of "good reasons" why not: Work (praise man vs. praising God), Extra recreation (sleep, vacation, sports), Extra chores (cut grass, wash car, shopping), Offended, Uncomfortable (lack of sociality), Problems (marriage, divorce, guilt, embarrassment), Nothing important happens there. Then he gives his reasons FOR church: God says so (God’s house, family, bride, body), Community of believers (baptism), Teaching, Fellowship (peer accountability), Sacrament (Ordinances), Prayer, Dealing with problems (leadership advice), Opportunities for service Immanuel Lutheran Church suggests several reasons why to go: Why Church Why food? Why shelter? Why community? Why service? In short, they suggest that the opportunities to provide service gives us a way to progress closer to God. Does not going to Church move someone further along in their progression? The results for a study of why people change religious affiliations is here: Religious Affiliation Changes | LDS Media Talk They say the biggest reason is that faith fizzles and people stop believing and going. Not a very good reason why NOT church. Still... why FOR church? The same article lists two major reasons: 1) they enjoy the style of worship, and 2) they felt called of God. I've always discounted the ... importance ... of the social aspect. I'm lightening up on my stance regarding that. At least feeling the Spirit and being called of God to GO to Church is a good reason. And that's where I stopped... I'm hoisting the white flag, to see what you all say.

I'd like to enlist the help of all here. Either respond to this thread, or point me in the right direction to other, similar conversations that have happened in the past. I was talking to someone who asked: "What is your best reason to convince someone to join the Church?" "Why? Are you trying to convince someone?" "Me." I was caught off guard a little. This person is active. I started thinking about it, and began to wonder. I don't know if my brain is getting in the way, or what... but it's turning out to be a more thought provoking question than I first thought. So... I'm enlisting your help/comments to answer this question, point towards research or other similar topics on the Internet, etc. For brevity's sake, I'll post a few of my next thoughts and initial responses in the next posts. Thanks! BDR

Old thread... but still. An old EQ pres once counseled: one color for CAUSE, one color for EFFECT. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it, because... I thought it was a good idea. But... it's incomplete, hence the reason I am looking at what others do. Of course, I could just be READING them, instead of reading about how others read them. Hmm.... BDR

"Donkey. Two words. Shut. Up." (Shrek x)

"[blah blah blah.] Really, I can't understand a word you're saying." (Dr. Evil)

"I know he's a Rusky, but he's a retard or something." (Star Trek IV)

First) He was not exalted in the sense that He/we will be, as children of God the Father, after receiving our bodies. 2nd) He was Jehovah, I AM, the God of Abraham, the creator, Father of us all (due to his role as Savior). Whenever he refers to Himself as Father it's because He's speaking for the Father using Divine Investiture of Authority. I believe. Like a lawyer. He represents God. He was "exalted above his brethren" (see Heb. 1) and earned these privileges due to His righteousness. 3rd) I read someone say (maybe Talmage?) that He would have lived forever ("infinite"), so he was an immortal Being. But... the doctrine that an Infinite Personage "commited suicide" isn't such a bad thing to me. I see it as another payment for the unfair state in which post-fall man finds himself. "This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Adam fell. He introduced mortality. We die because Adam made a poor choice. It isn't fair. Christ, an Eternal being, laid down His life and took it up again to conquer that death. BECAUSE He did so, not because He had to, he can lead man to conquer death. It's very merciful and miraculous. And, it seems ultimately fair. We all sin. Unless we accept the Atonement, we suffer. That seems fair to me, too. Later, BDR

Kind of rambling here. If so, I apologize, but I summarize the thoughts OK at the end I think. I wanted to clarify, backpedal, regroup, etc: To answer: You quoted D&C 19. Earlier in the same chapter it says "it is written Eternal... because I am Eternal." This is one way how an infinite atonement could be made for payment for a finite number of sins: because He WAS Infinite, Perfect. And that Infinite Personage paid the price for (a) sin. Mind you, I'm not opposed to Him paying for every sin we commit. And I might (likely) be way wrong about it. "On the other hand" (Tevye), I also had this thought: If the sands of the sea are numbered to God, so are His children, and each of them is only capable of committing x number of sins. The entire population would only be capable of commiting a finite number of sins anyway. Therefore, "infinite" doesn't necessarily refer to an "unlimited" number of sins. So, I tend to think because He is Infinite, and willingly submitted to the punishment, that qualifies as an infinite atonement, whether there was 1 or many or unlimited sin(s). I believe you're saying that the payment of the debt for sin is necessary, that it (the payment) is an eternal law, and God (Justice) MUST have payment. I agree. I also agree that Christ has paid for it. I believe the scripture reads: "I have suffered [the payment of/consequences for sin(s)] FOR all [mankind]..." Not: "I have suffered for ALL sins for mankind." I'm not suggesting it's in any way fictional. And, I'm not suggesting it's strictly symbolic. And, I'm not suggesting I'm at all correct, either. I haven't got a clue, I'm just trying to put the pieces together. I didn't articulate myself very well before. So, in an attempt to conclude: The original question was "Is the Atonment literal or symbolic?" As a precedent, I use the related concept of "Eternal punishment" as referred to in D&C 19. Which, in my opinion, is literal punishment for a symbolic period of time. We will literally be punished and the punishment is "sore and exquisite." The duration of our punishment is of unknown duration, unknown because it is God's punishment, and God is Eternal. Our punishment is, therefore, "Eternal." Symbolic. "Eternal punishment" is both literal and symbolic. Similarly, I believe the Atonement was literal payment for sin. Christ literally (and I suppose that's the start of an answer there) suffered "sore punishment" for sin. But the "infinite" nature of the sacrifice/payment is subject to some symbolism. He was Infinite, Perfect and Sinless. Therefore it was an "Infinite" Atonement. Symbolic. So I guess my final answer is, the "Atonement" was both literal and symbolic, depending on which aspect you're referring to: the payment part, or the sins (number of) covered. My inherent sense of justice says, because He was sinless, there's no justice for him to have to have paid for any (not even one) sin. Therefore, I believe, the very moment He pays for at least one sin, it's patently unfair, and He has the claim on Justice you referred to. I believe He has that claim repeatedly. I also believe that the consequence for "sin" -- whether it be a white lie or a murder is ultimately the same (according to justice) -- a sin is a sin and results in expulsion from God's presence. Payment for the sin is therefore the same, without repentance in operation. However, as I write this, there might be another "on the other hand" here. I'll grant that there might be only one or forty (and four) dozen "types" of sins. And each of them has varying degrees of "stripes" which the unrepentant must receive if they don't accept the payment made for them. Therefore, my inherent sense of justice might demand that payment for "this type of sin" (ie., a white lie) only has one stripe, while "that type of sin" (ie., murder) has a million stripes. As payment, I would expect a million and one stripes be paid. I would allow the million stripes received to pay for multiple murders IF the person who received them was sinless. I hope that makes sense. But "on the other hand"... maybe the elements and all intelligence would not. I guess we'll find out. But, I agree with the scriptures, that once the unrepentant pays, they're reward is less than those who accepted the Atonement and tried their best. Whew! BDR

a) any status update on this? b) what WmLee said, plus: God only has imperfect servants to work with. This is my favorite sermon, and I've already posted it in my limited time here. Moses hit the rock, but he was supposed to pray to God to make the water come out. (Plus, he said -- I daresay isolently -- "must WE fetch water out of this rock for you?") God still let the miracle happen. Why? Because he was upholding the prophet. He let the miracle happen for the people. However, he took Moses aside later and reprimanded him severely, to the point of not granting him entry into the Promised Land. Another example of imperfect leaders was related to <relation to me censored>'s Bishop. <X> had been praying to get to know Jesus better. When the Bishop verbally berated <X> in front of many other people, adding insults to the reprimand, <X> felt very justified in just walking away. However, the Spirit whispered to <X>, "How does it feel to have your closest friends and brothers turn against you? You like that?" <-- The Spirit was using this imperfect servant as a teaching opportunity. AND, the implication there was that you can get over it because He did. The last example I just thought of while writing this was when Brigham Young publically wronged someone. He said, "I guess you're going to get all offended, and leave now." The reply came, "Bro. Brigham if this was your church, I would." Good luck! Remember, "there's no witness until after the trial of your faith." BDR