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).

I do appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation, but when something like this is said, it's hard to believe that we'll be able to continue a rational conversation. It sound like you're saying that if I start speculating on how the universe works without it being revealed* to me and if I share my ideas with others, that I will go to hell and take others will me. *Must revelations come only though the brethren, or can God speak to me? I know the answer is that God can speak to me. I have felt the Spirit throughout my life and I continue to feel it now speaking truth to me, and I am confident that I am correct. Can't argue with that.

Does this mean that if two identical twins did exactly the same things and thought the exact same things, that God may give one a greater inheritance than the other just because He wants to? Another way of me asking the question is, does God violate the fairness principle? I assume not. I"m guessing that you're saying that God sees into the minds of some people and give them more because of their bad circumstances and others he rewards less because they squandered the gift. The amazing thing I'm seeing here in this thread is that when I use modern, scientific, naturalistic language to describe scriptural concepts, it sure makes people angry. The mental images are the same, just the words are different, but not contradictory. Why is everyone so defensive and insistent that we use 17th century English, Middle eastern literary imagery, and Mormon-speak? I believe that God is real. Why can't he exist in the 21st century using modern terms? How is that blasphemous or irreverent?

Thank you for taking the time and effort to reply. It seems like my posts inspire irritation and a little anger. I really don't mean them as such. If by "Pomp of Babylon" you mean reason, then yes. Who is jeering and mocking me? Blasphemous? Alien isn't an insult. It's a concept. I'm sorry, but by all reasonable definitions, Heavenly Father is an alien. Why argue when we're saying the same thing. If, instead of saying "interested in the welfare of our species", I'd said "wants to bless mankind" would you have accepted that? I said nothing of rats or sparks I actually spent a good deal of time yesterday thinking about the phrase "God will not be mocked." The idea is mentioned in the scriptures and we hear it in the temple. It's not technically accurate. I'm confident that if a man or woman stands up and mocks God, that nothing will happen at that moment. The traditional response is that at some future time, God will get ya--if not in this life, then the next. So, without a confidence in an afterlife and a confidence on how to get to the good place and avoid the bad place, then religious morals are no better than humanist morals. Thank you for the conversation. I hope it continues.

What is meant by "trouble"?

Well, if we're being genuine, we must admit that to a religionist, the definition of sin is pretty vague. The traditional Mormon definition that I know and have taught in Gospel Doctrine classes is that sin is knowing the will of God and not doing it. This definition is just kicking the can down the road--we now need to explain how one knows the will of God. We can discuss that next if you'd like. But I'll say that in most constructs (mine, traditional Mormons, and most religious people), sin is doing that which a bad. (We can define "bad" later). And the atonement is an episode which was designed to put us in a position so that we could each make decisions that if made for the good would allow us to reap the benefits of those good decisions, and not ultimately suffer bad consequences for our good choices. Does anyone have a problem with this explanation?

In many ways, my believe system has evolved to have more in common with the atheists and deists, but I still want to consider myself Mormon and not have cognitive dissonance, so can I believe this in order to reconcile my universal mental construct. 1. God is an extremely powerful being who looks like us and is concerned for our species welfare. He wants us to become like him. He is an alien who was involved with the establishment of life on this planet and he and his associates have a means of reading out minds and recording our thoughts. 2. If all my memories and thoughts are implanted in a new brain, a brain which did not have its own history, then that new brain and body would consider itself to be me, correct? That new copy of me, could then be considered to be a resurrected me, right? Especially if the old/current me were dead. (See “The 6th Day” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger). Even though these concepts above are presented in a non-religious tone, is there anything mechanically in conflict with LDS theology?

Sorry, I think I dropped something from my previous post. I don't recall what it is, but here's another attempt. For those who say that God is real/material/physical AND who say that God is not part of the universe or that God can exist outside of the universe . . . What is your definition of the universe if it does not include everything that is physical and everything that is material? By definition, doesn't the "universe" include everything? How can something exist outside of the universe?

Please vote for any statements with which you can agree. If you don't agree with them or can't agree with them, leave them blank.

In response to my question: "how do we do not know truth until God reveals it", Vort's response was: "It seems obvious and self-evident to me." This brief exchange sums up the challenge of faith that I'm having. It seems that to be a believer, one must accept some basic tenets even if they may not appear logical or even if they have no deeper support. These tenets must just be accepted as "obvious" and "self-evident". My problem is that I am now like that little child that asks, "why does 'A' happen . . ," and the father says, "Because of 'B' . .. ," and I ask why, "why does 'B' happen . . .,". Eventually the father runs out of answers and must say either "it's self-evident" or "I don't know." I believe that it's best and honest to say, "I don't know" rather than saying "God wants it that way," because then I'll just ask, "Why would God want it that way?" Ultimately, we all get to "I don't know." And I'm content with not knowing. Are you? Can't we settle for not knowing rather than making up answers? Religionists use God as the answer to mysteries (which really isn't an answer--just a place-holder); scientists allow for unknowns and continue to apply the scientific principle to see if a rational answer can be discovered. If not, then the unknown continues. Is there anything wrong with not knowing? Why must we know? Are we too uncomfortable with not knowing that we have to fill in the gap with God? You are correct. I am questioning. Not in a rude, hostile way. I understand that I NEED not speculate and that knowing answers to my questions won't change the way to salvation, but I hope that I'm not forbidden from speculating. I hope that the brethren would never say, "don't ask that question." I hope I'm allowed to ask the question even if the answer is "We don't know." This is the exact reason why tons of people doubt that God is real. But I chose to hope despite its irrationality. I, all the religionists, and all the atheists, agree with this. I enjoyed all of this statement, but I do wonder about part: "we don't allow our speculations or questions to overrule revealed truth". I do wonder what is meant by "revealed truth". It sounds like a wonderful concept: absolute statements that are never wrong, never changing, and can never be disproved. As of yet, I have not discovered such truth in the church or in any belief system.

I fear that we're starting to speak two different languages, and that we're fast approaching a linguistic wall. May I ask how you know this? From where did you get this?