Christyba75

Yes, I am on this forum to discuss mechanics. If you don't want to, you don't have to. I don't know the mechanics, I'm just suggesting some. I don't accept that they are unknowable and beyond us. They may be, but I don't think they have to be. If you don't want to join me in discussing possible mechanics then don't. When Paul says we are buried with Christ in baptism (Rom 6:4), and we go into the water, are you suggesting that we actually die and that as we come up out of the water we are literally born again and that something physical (sin) is absorbed into the water of the font? Or maybe death, burial, and cleansing and metaphors to help us understand better. Authority? None. Logic and reason? That's exactly what I'm here proposing: logic and reason. Not magical thinking.

I didn't dance around the question. I ignored it. It wasn't relevant to the topic that I started. But to answer your question: no, if he wants forgiveness from God he needs to seek forgiveness from God by following God's requirements.

So many things to address. I'll do my best. I do believe that the atonement is a necessary power. I can speculate how that power works, but I won't here and now. But can we all agree that we don't know exactly how that "power" works? We just know the effects and that it is necessary, but not why. I have some thoughts on the mechanics (yes, I am on this forum to speculate on mechanics), but I'm going to hold this one back for now.

No. I'm comparing the similarities of two scenarios: my husband receiving forgiveness from me, and me receiving forgiveness from God. I'm proposing that both forgiveness mechanisms are identical--that the act of forgiving is just an act of will, not a physical act. I believe that God forgiving us is an act of his will, not an actual cleansing. And that when we each become gods, we will use the same mechanism of forgiveness that we now have. That there is not some super-advanced forgiveness technique.

We "repent of" and "confess to". I should have said that my husband confesses to me, promises to never do it again, feels contrite and sorrowful, and understands how he violated my trust and our marriage. Main Entry: 1re·pent Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpent\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French repentir, from Medieval Latin repoenitēre, from Latin re- + Late Latin poenitēre to feel regret, alteration of Latin paenitēre — more at penitent Date: 14th century intransitive verb 1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life 2 a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind transitive verb 1 : to cause to feel regret or contrition 2 : to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for — re·pent·er noun

It was intended as being tongue-in-cheek. But from an observational viewpoint, unless you've seen the dead rise or can explain how it's possible, then the rational viewpoint would be that dead is dead. The brain which was a hive of electrical activity is now silent. The cell membranes decay. The neurotransmitters cease. The body will decay, the molecules will be eaten by microbes, which will be consumed by plants, which will be eaten by animals, which future men will eat. My body may be made from the molecules of many deceased ancestors. If the resurrection happens now, I hope they don't want their molecules back. I'm still using them. Hopefully God will give them a new body and leave mine alone. Or I may become duelistic!

So a sin is only a sin if its against a God's will. It's doing something he doesn't want you to do. Got it. How does God "cleanse" me of sin? Does he actually do something to me physically, as the word "cleanse" implies? No. No actual cleansing. It's a metaphor. He negates the effects of the sin. I stole some food. I did it. It happened. There's no changing that fact. It happened. I then did a bunch of things that are called "repentance". I really repented after I really sinned. God lets me go to heaven despite me having sinned. He just does. There is no "cleansing process." He just doesn't hold the sin against me because I did those things we call repentance which includes me changing my attitude and all that other stuff. Change the wording and this is just like what I may do of my husband told me that he'd kissed another woman. He repents, I forgive him, and all's good. Cleansing from sin is not some mystical process. It's just forgiving after the individual does what's expected of his after screwing up.

A naturalist would not say that their approach is deficient, just that it can't prove or disprove that a person's conscience exists after dealth. There is no proof that it does. The evidence that it doesn't is that graveyards are very quiet. My faith and hope is that my mind/spirit will exist after death, but there is no evidence supporting this.

Maybe we need to start even more basic. Someone please provide a definition of "sin", then we can discuss.

Lets reconsider what is meant by "cleansed from sin". Doesn't it mean that God will permit us to enter his presence despite us having committed sin? It means that he no longer will make us accountable for those sins. We won't need to pay for them because of our acceptance of Christ. Forgiveness of sins is something we can all grant on another. I can forgive my husband for things just as God can forgive sins.

One of the things that Dawkins and other atheistic writers propose is that man is not duelistic in nature. I am my brain. There is no me that can be separated from me. This does not appear consistent with Christian teaching. I can reject it or chose to harmonize it. A naturalistic approach does not permit for life after death, but it depends on how we define life. LDS teaching teach that we get a "new" body. It's a different, yet similar body which will house my "spirit". We usually think of my spirit as my memories and desires. My old body will be gone. No more split ends, no more scars. The new body is very dissimilar from my old body. It's more than just the old body cleaned up; it's a new body that is fashioned to look somewhat like the old body when it was at it's best, and then made perfect. This new body housing my desires and memories will then be me, and it will last as long as the universe lasts.

I had written a nice long answer to these questions and when I tried to post it on the other thread, it was locked, so my proposed post was lost. Something I'm doing here is irritating the moderators, so I need to tread more lightly lest I lock this thread too. I think sin and atonement fit just the way that the traditional LDS teachings tell us they do. I see no conflicts.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for writing this!! I read "The God Delusion" and I wanted to keep believing. I appreciate knowing that there are others who do so.

That's probably the best question I've read today. I guess I was looking for someone rational who could guide me through this. I wasn't trying to make people angry, but it sure seems like I did. I wonder if those who are the most defensive about my statements are those who feel most threatened. I'm also looking for real answers, not mumbo-jumbo. I've been a student of the scriptures all my life. I have read tons of book from BYU and Deseret Book. I lived in Utah most of my life and taught Gospel Doctrine. And it seems like as I hit middle age, I'm following circular logic: believe what God says because God says to believe what He says. My choices are to abandon logic and believe despite what my brain tell me or to find a way to accept the basic tenets of Mormonism within a rational view of reality. Has anybody read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? He's a somewhat hostile atheist, but his proposals have ZERO internal inconsistencies that I can find. Whereas religion has TONS, but we just ignore them. After reading "The God Delusion" I still wanted to believe in God, and only the Mormon view of God could possibly work, and only if I imposed a few constraints which I don't think LDS teachings strictly oppose. Has anyone else thoughtfully read this book? If you have, and you're still on this forum, I commend you, and I REALLY want to hear from you.

I implied interchangeable, but not inconsequential. Our resurrected and perfect body will be vastly different that our aged/decayed/cremated/bloodied body that we left behind. The differences between a resurrected body and a mortal body are probably greater than their similarities. Do we believe that our resurrected body will be made from the atoms of our former body? I'm questioning whether God requires that His mysteries/wonders must remain a mystery? If I can though my God-given reason find a place for mysteries in the world that He created, why can I not synthesize them? Why must I push the mysteries behind the curtain? Does it make it more special if God can go to the wall at the edge of the universe and open a door and step outside the universe? Does it make it more majestic if God's miracles are caused by unknowable forces? How can God ask us to know him, yet not make his ways knowable? He says, come unto me, yet when we use our minds to know him, we are smacked down by his followers. Mormons of all people should understand my desire to know God. The Catholics made him unknowable: a god without body, parts, or passions who is everywhere and in everything. To Mormons he is a glorified man, yet a man, with limbs, flesh, bone, a face, a place, and feelings. If Mormons are correct and if God is as knowable as they claim that he is, then why do we still hide him and get angry at an attempt to understand him. Admittedly, there are still many things about him and his ways that he has not revealed. They are unknown. And I am fine with that. My playfulness at guessing as to how they are filled, is just playfulness, not blasphemy! The most interesting thing I'm learning is how hostile everyone gets when I ask questions that I should not be asking. I'm threatened with hell fire for mocking God and preaching heresy. (I'm thinking of Thomas More, Martin Luther, Galileo).