james12

I would say evil has always existed. Evil is simply based on the law of cause and effect. That which we call evil is what in the eternal scheme brings disorder and chaos. However, sin first conceived in us at birth, "And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6:55). The reason sin conceives in us at birth is because it requires illusion. Sin implies we are at odds within ourselves. In other words, at the core we know what is right and yet we do not what is right. Paul says it this way: We do not what is right because we are weak, not because we are bad. See, the fall did not make us weak it simply exposed our weakness by placing us in an environment where we had to struggle (see TPJS p 354). Such is not the case once we are resurrected. In that state we will do exactly what we intend to do. The internal war is at an end and the confusion and darkness which covered us on the earth will be gone. However, to the extent that we did not overcome the enemy of our soul, we will continue to be lacking. We will not have the power, light and understanding others have obtained and to that extent "evil" will remain with us.

By natural I mean the consequences of sin we can feel here and now. Pain, sorrow, regret caused by the discord between spirit and body. Our spirit would do one thing yet through the influence of bodily appetites we do another. Of course the feelings are masked by the adversary at times while on earth, and we will recognize the effect more fully in the spirit world, but there is not some hidden payment outside of these things. What of the second half of my comment. What are your impressions?

I think we will simply differ on the idea of payment. I say there is no additional payment that Christ suffers outside the natural consequence of sin that we are exposed to and you would say there is. So be it. I appreciate you pointing to a scripture so we can see how it fits. I would disagree that someone who repents continues to pay a penalty. Once someone has repented and been forgiven the pain is over. This is the teaching of D&C 19:6 which says, "Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to his torment, but it is written endless torment." What's more verse D&C 138:59 indicates that once a person has paid the penalty of their transgressions and finally accepted the atonement they are washed clean. I believe that will include all the just. Everyone who receives any kingdom will ultimately bow the knee and repent of their sins. Only those in outer darkness will refuse this gift offered them. Now I do understand your comment about a person receiving a reward for their works and I believe there is another aspect that is an outgrowth of the sin/repentance process. We came here to earth with certain inherent weaknesses in our spirit. These weaknesses represent a lack of knowledge and enlightenment. Only here on earth can we gain the understanding we need to further progress. But, even after this life we will still be lacking in some measure. However, this does not represent a punishment for we will receive exactly what we desire, exactly what we worked for, no more, no less. Do you see this is not a punishment? It is as far as we can see, it is the level of our current understanding and we will be satisfied.

Your making very good sense from my perspective. I agree that if Christ had not suffered we could not repent or be forgiven. Jacob says our bodies would have crumbled to the dust and our spirits become subject to the father of lies and we would have become angels to a devil (2 Ne 9:8-9). Indeed, because of the fall and because of the atonement we have "entered progressions highway".

Ok, saw this post after my previous comment and I see you have answered one question. I agree Christ's suffering will be greater than ours because he suffered for everyone, but when the scripture says, "they must suffer even as I" I think he is saying that unless we repent we will continue to suffer as he suffers. Or in other words, we will suffer for our own sins along with him. Actually, D&C 19 also helps explain that suffering does not end until we repent. The penal substitution theory would have us believe that there is an end to suffering even if a person fails to repent. That there is a certain price that must be paid but that it can be paid by either suffering or repenting. However, in verse four the Lord says, "And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless". The Lord also confirms in D&C 29:44, "And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not." There are only two options, repent (change) or suffer. There is no third option of paying for our sins through suffering. Suffering alone never has and never will free of from our sins. It matters not if it is my suffering, Christ's suffering, or my neighbors suffering. Suffering is the consequence of sin (and in that way we pay for our sin) but it does not provide a way out.

Because you don't answer any of my questions. It's not about you disagreeing with me at all, I actually appreciate your different opinion and hope to learn something, but you must present me with some reasoning.

The spirit world is a place of partial judgement. I take that as meaning that we understand more fully our righteousness or our wickedness and enter a more complete joy or sorrow when we enter the spirit world. But we do not yet understand everything we ultimately will at the resurrection. Regarding spirit prison we have this from the encyclopedia of Mormonism: Note the clarification regarding the two conditions that are involved when we talk about spirit prison. One is, a mental condition based on our unbelief and disobedience, the other is a limitation based on the fact that we do not have a body. Our punishment ends and we are freed from the first condition when we repent of our sins. We do not need to wait for the ordinances to be performed. We are freed from the second condition when we have received all the ordinances and are resurrected.

Folk Prophet, Why won't you answer the questions? This is not bantering words. This is the core of the gospel and the most important event in time or eternity. It's worth discussing. If I am indeed wrong then I invite you to tell me how. It does no good to tell me that it is plain and common doctrine and end the conversation. I understand what the majority of members around me believe, and I assure you I have considered it. It is precisely the questions I have asked you that caused me to change my mind. Consider them. Think about them. Ask questions of these scriptures and the spirit will testify of new truths.

Of course they're not inappropriate. I guarantee if I can't satisfactory answer them in my own mind I will spend more time considering what you have said, and that's a good thing. Why is it important to understand that the atonement is not penal substitution and how does that help in progression? When we understand how the atonement works we can better use the atonement in our lives and we can also recognize our relationship with the Father and Son more fully. This is not to say that a more limited understanding cannot still help us, but it is of a more restricted application. For example, the theory of penal substitution tends to create a separation between the individual in need and Christ. The individual on the one side suffering for their sin and Christ on the other. The thinking goes that the way to bridge the gap is repentance. If a person repents they get to throw their sins over the boundary to Christ. He then takes them and suffers for them. Do you see how this false boundary makes it appear that the person must do the work alone until a certain point? Further, it gives the false impression that Christ simply takes the burden. This is rarely the case and so when the person's experience does not match their understanding then they think they are doing something wrong. They get confused and don't understand how to progress. But when we understand that Christ is with us every step of the way. That he suffers with us when we sin, that he is not a distant God and there is no specific point at which he finally takes our sin we can turn to him at any and every step in this process. Further, by not expecting him to simply take the sin away we can better recognize when we are forgiven even if we still must be vigilant.

I believe there is some misunderstanding of the question. Verse 17 says, "But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I". Based on this scripture and your previous comments I believe you would say that this scripture means our suffering will equal Christ's if we don't repent. Is that correct? If so, how can that possibly be, seeing that by your very definition our suffering must be so much less than his? If my understanding is incorrect please explain how you interpret verse 17.

No. I assume you believe that verse 17 means that our suffering will equal Christ's suffering if we don't repent. I'm simply asking how that's possible if ours is of such a limited scope compared to his.

Actually Folk Prophet I would love to hear the detailed response if you still have it because there are many open questions. Like, "If it is right that God does not pardon us because another person suffers, why should what Jesus did convince God to pardon us?" However, for now let me review the above scripture you provided. I assure you that this scripture does not fit well with the penal substitution theory, even though you comment that it is easily understood. Here is the question: How is it that if a person doesn't repent they must suffer as Christ suffered? Doesn't their suffering end after a set time regardless of their repentance? How then is it even possible that they would suffer as he suffered?

Make sure you review Elder Bednar's talk on grace and the atonement: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/04/the-atonement-and-the-journey-of-mortality?lang=eng

What does it mean to forgive? Does it mean to transfer the payment to another person or is it absolution? In the below parable did the king make another person pay? Would that have shown mercy? Now as far as forgiving us as we forgive others, this has nothing to do with transference of punishment but rather the hardness of our hearts. The standard we use to judge others is the gauge we should use to judge our own heart. Forgiveness will not be forced upon us and those quickest to find fault with anothers are the least ready to enter the kingdom.

Certainly just because saving ordinances are performed on earth it does not mean that one is freed from spirit prison. They must change their ways and accept the ordinances. Of course I do not know all the workings of the spirit world, but ultimately every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. Most to receive the glory prepared for them but a very few will be cast into outer darkness.

I am not denying he took our punishment upon him. I am denying that there was a remainder, a leftover, that he took. It may help to re-read my posts again on this subject. Of course there is a punishment affixed, I have not said otherwise. The question is, when does the punishment end? I say it ends when we repent. Further I say that punishment alone is not an end in itself, but simply a means to an end. Alma testifies of this very truth when he says: Because of Christ, law and punishment lead a person to repent. This is its whole purpose behind them, "For Christ is the end of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4, NIV). Why is repentance insufficient? When we truly and completely change there is simply no reason for punishment. Christ himself is in the very middle of that change process. Thankfully it is sufficient. Again, Christ did take our punishment upon him I have not said otherwise. But when I read the above scripture I understand the Lord as saying that he suffered with us, not that he suffered the leftovers if we repent. Perhaps if you read it again in this light you will see it. If this scripture so obviously matches your understanding answer me this question. If it is right that God does not pardon us because another person suffers, why should what Jesus did convince God to pardon us? And please don't say it is because he is a God, that is irrelevant to the question. All that statement dues is ignore the question and hide your ignorance on this point by trying to place it in the realm of the unknown.

It's not that his sorrow wasn't genuine. It was just incomplete because he could not finish the process of repentance without the grace of God which was only to be extended after he suffered in hell. "Make your calling and election sure go on from grace to grace until you obtain a promise from God for yourselves that you shall have eternal life....Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, this is the power of Elijah to seal or bind or turn the hearts of the fathers to their children sealed against all sin but the sin of shedding innocent blood and the sin against the Holy Ghost. David was one of the promised seed yet he was guilty of murder. (James Burger Notebook, quoted in Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, loc 3988 kindle) "To obtain this sealing is to make our calling and election sure which we ought to give all diligence to accomplish there are two sins against which this power does not secure or prevail they are "The sin against the Holy Ghost" And "shedding of innocent Blood" which is equivelant to "crucifying the Son of God afresh & putting him to an open shame" Those who do these it is impossible to renew unto repentance for they are delivered to the buffettings of satan until the day of redemptions illustrated the case of David said he could not obtain celestial glory and the reason why he had any hope or obtained a Promise that of his seed one should be raised up to reign over Israel forever was because that he had not spoken against the spirit & because he had not done this he was renewed unto repentance and obtained promise that God would not leave his soul in Hell" (Franklin D. Richards "Scriptural Items", also quoted in Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, loc 3999) His soul will be redeemed from hell.

Of course Jesus paid the price for our sins. He did indeed suffer our pains and sorrows. My previous statement is in no way denying his suffering for us, the atonement, nor any of your scriptures. Rather I am rejecting the idea of pain transfer (penal substitution). Here is the problem with most of what I hear about the atonement. It begins with the assumption that there is a given amount of suffering for each sin. So for example, stealing equates to 10 pain units. The thinking goes that if I don't repent I must suffer the 10 pain units. However, if I do repent I may suffer 2 of those pain units but Christ suffers the other 8. Hallelujah! The problem is, that has not been my experience at all, and what's more, the BoM rejects it. There is no transfer of punishment for the extra 8 pain units. This grew out of early Christian attempts to try and define the atonement (and I'm afraid they missed the mark). The whole idea that there are some limited number of pain units is false. No, a person suffers until he changes and if he does not change he simply continues to suffer. (This is why we do not know the end of the suffering of those in outer darkness.) What brings it to an end is repentance. There is simply no other way. Note: this also means that there is no way a person can suffer until magically his suffering ends because he has reached his 10th pain unit. What then does happen? I think the spirit whispers that Christ suffers with us, that he took upon him our pain and sorrow so that even in our darkest moments we still have a way out. That even at that terrible time he is there offering a way for us to climb back out of the pit. See the atonement does something much more important then transferring our pain, instead it strengthens us to overcome. If pain was simply transferred there would be very little growth. But when we are strengthened we are better able to face the next challenge. Now then, here is the question for you FP. How do you explain Alma 34:10-12 which rejects this entire notion of pain transfer from one individual to another?

Suffering and sorrow is not repentance. In the final analysis repentance is change. And that change takes two parties, the first is our willing submission, the second is Christ's grace so that we are strengthened. We often equate sorrow with repentance because the Lord is so merciful. However, David was a special case. Joseph Smith tells us that David had received his calling and election made sure and then fell. However, he will ultimately be redeemed at the end of the millennium.

I tend to agree with your line of thought. With our law if a person steals he is punished. The question is, for how long? Either he is punished until he serves his time or he is punished until he changes. I believe God's justice works the second way. Once someone changes (ie repents) they no longer deserve to suffer. They are freed. It is simply the law of the harvest. We get what we deserve, and when we change we no longer deserve to suffer. (Now because of our body and this physical plane there are some consequences we don't immediately recognize but this fact still remains). I reject this whole idea of penal substitution. Amulek plainly states why it is wrong, "Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay" (Alma 34:11). And yet, even with this scripture, we believe that God somehow transfers the punishment to Christ. We try to explain the scripture away, saying that man cannot take another man's punishment, but Christ can. However, the scripture gives no room for this interpretation. I believe Christ's atonement is simply that, at-one-ment. Through his atonement he became one with our spirit. In the good and in the bad he is with us. He suffers when we suffer he rejoices when we feel true joy. This is what he testifies to his apostles, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). And again, "I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound" (D&C 88:50). And again Amulek's testimony is that Christ's at-one-ment was "infinite" and "eternal". Because of him we can and do change. This is the real gift, the opportunity to face evil and still grow.

Anatess/Folk Prophet, I see this conversation will not lead to understanding and does not carry the right spirit. Sorry for any words of mine that contributed to that feeling.

My concern is not whether Christ was perfect. Of course he was. I am more concerned about progression. And frankly, saying "keep the commandments" does little to help someone who has grown up in the LDS church their whole life. Such a statement is beat into our heads from the time we are born. For a sincere follower there is no confusion about the need to keep the commandments. The confusion comes in how to apply that teaching and more lists of "do's" does not help.

Actually, Jesus broke the commandments all the time. In fact, this was the continued complaint of the Sadducees and Pharisees against him. Now, of course, we say that the commandments he broke were superfluous. I wonder how many unnecessary commandments we keep? My comment was not aimed at your "weakness" as you put it. Rather it was to show how attitude can trump words and actions.

Hi Anatess, I have thoughts on every question I ask. That does not mean I know the answer. However, I have learned for myself that shear force of will brings little if any progress. I am curious as to what others have found and hoped to share my thoughts.

I agree. The Lord's way is easy and light.