Is God all-powerful?

[Blackmarch]

Would it still be just for God to set up the Law such that He will forgive on conditions of repentance and faith in Christ? Could He still do this without the middle step of vicarious sacrifice?

how would this be just for those who never break said law? The sacrifice allows the debt or penalty to be dealt in full. if god says oh its ok you broke the law but you've changed, so you are pardoned from the law, then the law becomes null.

[Traveler]

No. Fully human is lower than angels. Fully divine is God, of course higher than angels. Fully divine is a pretty standard phrase in Christianity. It's as standard in Christology as the phrase Hypostatic Union.

 

Really - When did Jesus Christ use such standard phrases?  I do not think such phrases are even standard for apostolic Christianity.  These kinds of phrases are not "fully" understandable - especially as Christ like (what I believe to be Christian).   Thus if it is not a phrase used by Christ - what claim is there that it is Christ like?  BTW is not heresy something that has no actual application or application that changes?

[mordorbund]

how would this be just for those who never break said law? The sacrifice allows the debt or penalty to be dealt in full. 

 

It would be just because it's built into the Law. If you keep the Law, your are saved. If you break the Law, you can receive the full punishment of the Law or invoke the grace of Jesus. It's the same rules we have now and we accept that it's Just (if it weren't, then as TFP points out we couldn't have faith in God). The question is, does the sacrifice have to be built in? It sounds like you think so because there is some legal debt that's incurred, but against whom? God the Lawgiver? why doesn't His Law simply include this clause? Traveller's model suggests the Law is greater than God and God must conform. Why do you think the sacrifice must be?

 

 

 if god says oh its ok you broke the law but you've changed, so you are pardoned from the law, then the law becomes null.

 

 

Careful, you're starting to sound like Paul. :)

[Guest]

Really - When did Jesus Christ use such standard phrases?  I do not think such phrases are even standard for apostolic Christianity.  These kinds of phrases are not "fully" understandable - especially as Christ like (what I believe to be Christian).   Thus if it is not a phrase used by Christ - what claim is there that it is Christ like?  BTW is not heresy something that has no actual application or application that changes?

As this is an LDS Gospel Discussion thread, I will just let this discussion rest. Suffice it to say that the majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christians for this particular reason.

[The Folk Prophet]

As this is an LDS Gospel Discussion thread, I will just let this discussion rest. Suffice it to say that the majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christians for this particular reason.

 

Huh? The majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christian because Mormons believe Christianity is centered in what Christ taught?

 

Sounds very......logical.

[Guest]

Huh? The majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christian because Mormons believe Christianity is centered in what Christ taught?

 

Sounds very......logical.

No. The majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christian because they are not Trinitarians - so they say things like "fully divine and fully human" and "hypostatic union" is heretic when it is the bedrock of Christian understanding of God.

Edited April 21, 2015 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

No. The majority of Christian religions do not believe Mormons are Christian because they are not Trinitarians - so they say things like "fully divine and fully human" and "hypostatic union" is heretic when it is the bedrock of Christian understanding of God.

 

Right. Of course, that doesn't have any bearing on whether such ideas are, actually, heretical or not.

[Guest]

Right. Of course, that doesn't have any bearing on whether such ideas are, actually, heretical or not.

Of course. But then, for a Trinitarian Christian, this entire thread is outright heretical and blasphemous. To teach that there is something God cannot do, or that he is constrained by is quite a grave sin... the greatest that can be committed outwardly, in fact. Yes, ranks higher than murder...

Good thing we're Mormons, eh?

[Capitalist_Oinker]

If Heavenly Father is all powerful why can't he just forgive the way I do when my kids mess up? They make a mistake, get punished/chastised and we move on; it doesn't require a blood sacrifice for me to do that. Why is God constrained by justice, when He is all powerful? Why does He have rules, when He makes the rules? I know the Fall brought sin and death which keeps us from God, but if it is necessary for us to go through this fallen life, why does God require the Atonement to satisfy justice and allow mercy? Again, why is He constrained? Is it self imposed? Is it the blueprint of earths? I'm just looking for some thoughts on this subject.

 

I once worked with an atheist who belittled the entire concept of God and the Atonement based upon these same questions.

Why did a supposedly omnipotent God allow his (supposed) son to be killed to satisfy some capricious sense of justice?

"Whose justice", he would demand! 

"Justice" would be nothing but an arbitrary concept in the mind of an omnipotent being, he would say, so he could just as easily ignore it as abide by it.

He would laugh at each attempt by other co-workers to explain, by simply reverting to his original question---why did God kill his own son to satisfy a sense of justice that only existed because of his decision to create it in the first place! And since he created it, why couldn't he just ignore it. Who's going to stop him??

 

I'd like to give you the answer I gave him.

Like too many of my other posts, this one will by necessity be quite long. However, if you'll bear with me and read through it I believe it will answer your question.

 

I'll begin with an analogy and a question of my own.

First the analogy.

 

Let's pretend that President Monson decides that a certain widow's house needs to be painted. 

He makes a call to an Area Seventy, who then makes a call to a Stake President, who then makes a call to one or more bishops. The bishops explain to their HP group leaders and EQ presidents that President Monson would like the house to be painted, whereupon the brethren organize themselves and before long the house gets painted.

 

Conversely, let's suppose that President Monson makes a similar request to a group of militant anti-Mormons; individuals who have nothing but disdain and contempt for him. 

Do you suppose the house would get painted?

Not likely.

 

Now the question? By what power did President Monson get the house painted? 

Was it by some mystical force which deprived those who painted the house of their agency; and if so, why could he have not used the same power on the anti-Mormon group?

Of course Pres. Monson has no such power.

Then by what power did he accomplish the task? What was the motivating factor which caused the brethren to fulfill his request, while the anti-Mormons ignored it.

Was it not due to the respect and HONOR the brethren have for the prophet?  

 

So how is this analogous to the original question, you're wondering?

Have we not been taught by prophets and apostles that life here on earth is PATTERNED after life in heaven? 

Is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints referred to as the "Kingdom of God on the earth" in juxtaposition with the "Kingdom of God in Heaven"?

Would it be presumptuous to suggest that the President of the Kingdom of God on the earth derives his power from a similar source, and in the same way, that the President of the Kingdom of God in Heaven derives His?

Why don't we let God Himself answer that question?

In D&C 29:36 we read: "for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power…

 

Imagine that. 

God tells us that (the same as with President Monson) "HONOR" is the very source of his "POWER"!

 

Which then begs the question, WHOSE honor furnishes God's power? 

It can't be just the honor of His children alone, for that would in no way explain His power over animals and other living creatures, the wind, mountains, the waves of the sea; yes even the very elements throughout the universe!

 

To answer the question we turn to the teachings of prophets and apostles. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught that there is "life" in all matter.

Brigham Young said: 

"There is life in all matter throughout the vast extent of all the eternities; it is in the rock, the sand, in water, air, the gases, and in short, in every description and organization of matter whether it be solid, liquid or gaseous, particle operating with particle."

(Gives new meaning to Joshua 24:27, doesn't it?)

He also taught that this "life" has "intelligence", and that these "intelligences" have their agency just as we do!

 

Think about it; every atom (or some other measure of matter) is actually a living entity having intelligence and AGENCY. When we observe the "laws of nature" (particle operating with particle as Brigham said) we are merely observing organized intelligences honoring their supreme organizer (God), and abiding by the laws He has established.  

 

So, if everything in the universe is "matter"; and this matter has life, intelligence, and agency; and God derives His power from the "honor" these intelligences afford Him; what do you suppose would become of God if he did anything to cause those intelligences to lose respect for Him?

What if He were to act in an arbitrary or capricious or unfair manner? What if He were to do something that would cause the vast number of intelligences throughout the universe to lose confidence in Him?

 

The answer to that question is found in the scriptures.

 

"And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God..." (Mormon 9:19)

 

"Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God." (Alma 42:13)

 

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." (Alma 42:22)

 

"What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God." (Alma 42:25)

 

In other words, if God were ever to act in an arbitrary or capricious or unfair manner as pertaining to the laws He Himself established for the governing of the universe; if he were to allow His mercy to "rob justice" when dealing with ANY of the intelligences in the universe who have violated those laws; He would thus lose the respect and HONOR of the rest of the intelligences (those who abide the law); and without that HONOR He would have no POWER, because the intelligences throughout the universe would cease to respond to His commands. As a result He would "cease to be God".

 

The scriptures tell us that God has "given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons"; "And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions."

We are told that "NONE shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness"; and that if any keep not His law they "become transgressors; and justice and judgment are the penalty which is affixed unto [His] law."

 

So what was the necessity of the Atonement?

That it WAS necessary is beyond question. The Savior pled: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me...”

So why was it NOT possible? Why did the Savior have to suffer and die?

 

Remember, all of God's children (with the exception of the Savior) have or will sin. All of us have broken the law. All of us have therefore become subject to "justice" and the penalties affixed to the law. 

If God were to ignore a broken law; were he to declare that because we are His children and because He loves us He will simply exempt us from any penalties or punishment, He would immediately lose the confidence and HONOR the rest of the intelligences in the universe afford Him. They would resent the fact that He was not administrating His laws in a fair and equitable manner. Subsequently having lost their "HONOR", He would lose His power, and He would "cease to be God". 

That is why He tells us He "cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."

 

But if God (Christ) were to pay the penalty for a broken law, if He were to satisfy the demands of justice Himself, by His own suffering, how then could the rest of the intelligences in the universe object to Him bringing us back into the presence of the Father? Justice has been served and mercy also. Neither principle has robbed the other. 

Thus the Savior can say: "Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life."

 

Because of the love and respect (Honor) the rest of the intelligences in the universe have for Christ (their great law-giver) they do not object when our Heavenly Father accepts us back into His presence.  What our Heavenly Father could not accomplish on His own initiative, He is able to accomplish through the mission and sacrifice of His Beloved Son. 

This very plan was known before the foundation of the earth. Jehovah Himself was chosen to be a sacrifice for sin to satisfy the demands of justice. This is one of the reasons we "shouted for joy" in the grand council in heaven when we realized that we could make mistakes here and still have the opportunity to return to live with our Father in Heaven again!

 

Our Heavenly father offers us the opportunity to progress and ultimately enjoy the same kind of life He enjoys. But knowing that all of us would break His laws and subsequently be barred from ever returning to Him (because of the law); He offered up His only begotten Son as a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of justice, and to pay the penalties affixed to the law. So that the intelligences throughout the universe may recognize that His laws have been administered equitably in regards to His own children, that everyone has been treated fairly, and thereby they will continue to have confidence in, and honor for Him. 

 

It was a glorious plan then, it is a glorious plan now, and like we did in the pre-mortal world I want to shout for joy every time I think about it. 

As Jacob proclaims in the BOM. 

"O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace!"

"O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape..."

"O how great the plan of our God!"

"O the greatness and the justice of our God!"

"O how great the holiness of our God!'

 

I hope this answers your question as to the "why" of the Atonement.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[prisonchaplain]

The more power you have--whether physical, intellectual, or even spiritual, the more restraint you need.  That God grants us so much free will--that He countenances so much evil in his created world--this is a sign of tremendous power.  We blame him for our own rebellion.  It is the main accusation that sinners make against God--that He allows so much evil.  Yet, this may be an ultimate sign of his power.  Those who are uncertain extend tremendous energy proving their power.  Those who've got it, tend to measure their responses much more carefully.  By that standard, Our God truly is an awesome God.

[Traveler]

I have long felt that centering on the power of G-d is the one sure way to completely misunderstand and falsely judge him.  I personally believe that power is the lease defining element that G-d himself considers important.  It is my experience and understanding that G-d delegates and gives away as much of his power as he can.  The one aspect of his nature that prevents him shedding all his power is his love, concern and interest in helping and assisting us be the best we can be.

 

If there is anything I have learned about power in the example of Jesus Christ – is that he is willing to forgo his great power and suffer beyond any logic just that we could benefit for that which we are most unworthy.  For those that think G-d and his power is the great thing to understand – I would argue that you know nothing that is actually worth knowing about G-d.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Traveler

[james12]

It would be just because it's built into the Law. If you keep the Law, your are saved. If you break the Law, you can receive the full punishment of the Law or invoke the grace of Jesus. It's the same rules we have now and we accept that it's Just (if it weren't, then as TFP points out we couldn't have faith in God). The question is, does the sacrifice have to be built in? It sounds like you think so because there is some legal debt that's incurred, but against whom? God the Lawgiver? why doesn't His Law simply include this clause? Traveller's model suggests the Law is greater than God and God must conform. Why do you think the sacrifice must be?

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. 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Once someone changes (ie repents) they no longer deserve to suffer. They are freed. 

 

I may be missing your point, but you seem to be suggesting that once a person repents, punishment becomes null and void and the person is "freed" from it.

Perhaps this is so in some circumstances but certainly not all. David was not "freed" from his sin of murder despite his sincere repentance. He lost his salvation, which means his punishment is eternal.

 

On a side note, I have edited my previous post in order to remove a sentence that has bothered me ever since I wrote it. That was the one where I quoted my co-worker's statement regarding my answer to his question. That IS in fact what he said, but I never liked the sound of it and I shouldn't have written it here. I would also point out that it was HIS opinion, not mine. 

[The Folk Prophet]

james12, with all due respect, your view on the atonement is not in line with what the prophet's, apostles, and scriptures clearly teach on the matter. The atonement is much, much more than just a means for us to grow. And the fact of the matter is that Jesus literally paid the price for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

He bled from every pore, suffered for your sins, paid the price that you could not pay, and ultimately died for you that you might live again. Much more than merely a means to be some sort of mentor for change.

 

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'm not sure how anyone can think the scriptures give no room for the "interpretation" that Christ took upon himself our sins by way of punishment and payment.

 

3 Nephi 11:11

And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

 

Isaiah 53:5

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

Mosiah 3:11

For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

 

Alma 7:13

Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

 

Matt 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

1 John 1:7

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

Etc., etc...  There's many, many, many more.

 

Carefully read through 2 Nephi chapters 2 and 9 as well, in full, where it very clearly teaches that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence.

[Traveler]

james12, with all due respect, your view on the atonement is not in line with what the prophet's, apostles, and scriptures clearly teach on the matter. The atonement is much, much more than just a means for us to grow. And the fact of the matter is that Jesus literally paid the price for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

He bled from every pore, suffered for your sins, paid the price that you could not pay, and ultimately died for you that you might live again. Much more than merely a means to be some sort of mentor for change.

 

 

I'm not sure how anyone can think the scriptures give no room for the "interpretation" that Christ took upon himself our sins by way of punishment and payment.

 

3 Nephi 11:11

And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

 

Isaiah 53:5

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

Mosiah 3:11

For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

 

Alma 7:13

Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

 

Matt 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

1 John 1:7

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

Etc., etc...  There's many, many, many more.

 

Carefully read through 2 Nephi chapters 2 and 9 as well, in full, where it very clearly teaches that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence.

 

There may be one other thought - because G-d (through Jesus) grants us agency and therefore gives us power to sin - with previous knowledge that we would sin.  That responsibility for our sins during our mortal probation, in part remains with G-d for allowing such sins to occur.   His willingness to grant us agency came with a price - which is why Lucifer was unwilling to grant us agency.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Traveler

[mordorbund]

For what it's worth, my initial question stems from a perspective outside of Christianity (I first read similar thoughts from a Muslim who doesn't have Jesus in the Savior role). Once a person falls inside Christianity (I don't know where the OP sits with this) then I think you do have to accept that Christ is our Savior and Atoned for our sins. I think the mechanism still remains unrevealed, so we get these different models of an abstract Justice that must be paid, or Skousen's Intelligence-honor.

 

james12, with all due respect, your view on the atonement is not in line with what the prophet's, apostles, and scriptures clearly teach on the matter. The atonement is much, much more than just a means for us to grow. And the fact of the matter is that Jesus literally paid the price for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

He bled from every pore, suffered for your sins, paid the price that you could not pay, and ultimately died for you that you might live again. Much more than merely a means to be some sort of mentor for change.

 

 

I'm not sure how anyone can think the scriptures give no room for the "interpretation" that Christ took upon himself our sins by way of punishment and payment.

 

3 Nephi 11:11

And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

 

Isaiah 53:5

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

 

Mosiah 3:11

For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

 

Alma 7:13

Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

 

Matt 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

1 John 1:7

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

Etc., etc...  There's many, many, many more.

 

Carefully read through 2 Nephi chapters 2 and 9 as well, in full, where it very clearly teaches that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence.

 

The scriptures testify that Christ took upon us our sins and iniquities. Is that so He could assume the role of sinner and pay back Justice (as in Packer's The Mediator) or is that so He could assume the role of one sinned against and directly forgive? Or is something else at play here?

[james12]

 

I may be missing your point, but you seem to be suggesting that once a person repents, punishment becomes null and void and the person is "freed" from it.

Perhaps this is so in some circumstances but certainly not all. David was not "freed" from his sin of murder despite his sincere repentance. He lost his salvation, which means his punishment is eternal.

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.

[james12]

james12, with all due respect, your view on the atonement is not in line with what the prophet's, apostles, and scriptures clearly teach on the matter. The atonement is much, much more than just a means for us to grow. And the fact of the matter is that Jesus literally paid the price for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

He bled from every pore, suffered for your sins, paid the price that you could not pay, and ultimately died for you that you might live again. Much more than merely a means to be some sort of mentor for change.

 

I'm not sure how anyone can think the scriptures give no room for the "interpretation" that Christ took upon himself our sins by way of punishment and payment.

...

 

Carefully read through 2 Nephi chapters 2 and 9 as well, in full, where it very clearly teaches that if Christ had not atoned for our sins, no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would satisfy the demands of justice, and man could never regain God’s presence.

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?

[The Folk Prophet]

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).

 

You're saying Jesus pay the price of our sins but denying that he took our punishment upon him? How is that not the same thing. Are you not aware that the price of sin IS punishment?

 

Maybe you should read Alma 42 as well, which clearly lays out the facts of the matter on the affixed law for transgression (whether you want to call it "pain" or not isn't really meaningful -- the fact is that there is a punishment affixed).

 

I'm not entirely rejecting everything you say. But you are missing components, and contrary to what you keep saying, the Book of Mormon teaches that there is a punishment affixed for transgression, that Christ paid the price of that punishment through His suffering, -- he took the punishment for us -- and that we can only take advantage of that price paid through repentance. It's not merely about change. 

 

I don't reject the importance of change, or that we can never leave the pain of sin without change. But change, in and of itself, is insufficient.

 

How can you possibly read something like D&C 19:16 "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;" and come away from in thinking that it means something other than him taking our punishment for us?

 

Seriously, read Alma 42 and 2 Nephi 2 and 9. I cannot imagine how someone can read these scriptures and then claim the Book of Mormon doesn't support the idea that Christ took our punishment for sin upon himself.

 

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?

 

First, I don't see any ultimate rejection of this concept whatsoever, so I'm not sure where you're even coming from. What is rejected is that only man, beast, or fowl could do it. The verses you've given answer the question quite well:

 

"...but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice."

 

and

 

"...there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world."

 

The ability for Christ to provide an infinite atonement vs. man, beast, or otherwise is clearly laid out in the scriptures.

 

These things are taught SO plainly in the Book of Mormon and in literally thousands of talks by the prophets and apostles throughout the years. I am seriously flabbergasted than anyone could be wresting with these extremely plain scriptures. It's like you've taken one line of scripture entirely out of context and built a philosophy around it, pretty much ignoring everything else ever taught on the matter. I mean it says it right there... therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. As in (obviously) another man, beast or fowl cannot take my punishment for me, but Christ can! How can this mean anything but what it OBVIOUSLY means?

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Suffering and sorrow is not repentance. 

 

I never suggested they were. But true repentance is unlikely in the absence of either one.

And as for David, Joseph Smith said that: "David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah". 

And after a careful reading of Psalms it would be difficult to argue that David's repentance wasn't genuine. 

 

You wrote: "Joseph Smith tells us that David had received his calling and election made sure..."

 

Not that it's germane to the argument, but I have never read, nor can I find anywhere, Joseph Smith stating that David's calling and election was made sure. Can you enlighten me?

 

You wrote: "However, he will ultimately be redeemed at the end of the millennium."

 

Redeemed from what? 

If you mean he will be redeemed from hell then we are in agreement. If you mean he was redeemed from punishment then we most certainly disagree. 

His punishment is eternal (loss of salvation). "Change" to ANY extent will not change that.

[james12]

I never suggested they were. But true repentance is unlikely in the absence of either one.

And as for David, Joseph Smith said that: "David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah". 

And after a careful reading of Psalms it would be difficult to argue that David's repentance wasn't genuine.

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. 

You wrote: "Joseph Smith tells us that David had received his calling and election made sure..."

 

Not that it's germane to the argument, but I have never read, nor can I find anywhere, Joseph Smith stating that David's calling and election was made sure. Can you enlighten me?

"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)

 

You wrote: "However, he will ultimately be redeemed at the end of the millennium."

 

Redeemed from what? 

If you mean he will be redeemed from hell then we are in agreement. If you mean he was redeemed from punishment then we most certainly disagree. 

His punishment is eternal (loss of salvation). "Change" to ANY extent will not change that.

His soul will be redeemed from hell.

[james12]

You're saying Jesus pay the price of our sins but denying that he took our punishment upon him? How is that not the same thing. Are you not aware that the price of sin IS punishment?

 

Maybe you should read Alma 42 as well, which clearly lays out the facts of the matter on the affixed law for transgression (whether you want to call it "pain" or not isn't really meaningful -- the fact is that there is a punishment affixed).

 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.

I'm not entirely rejecting everything you say. But you are missing components, and contrary to what you keep saying, the Book of Mormon teaches that there is a punishment affixed for transgression, that Christ paid the price of that punishment through His suffering, -- he took the punishment for us -- and that we can only take advantage of that price paid through repentance. It's not merely about change.

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:

Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul. Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man. (Alma 42:16-18)

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).

I don't reject the importance of change, or that we can never leave the pain of sin without change. But change, in and of itself, is insufficient.

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.

How can you possibly read something like D&C 19:16 "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;" and come away from in thinking that it means something other than him taking our punishment for us?

 

Seriously, read Alma 42 and 2 Nephi 2 and 9. I cannot imagine how someone can read these scriptures and then claim the Book of Mormon doesn't support the idea that Christ took our punishment for sin upon himself.

 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.

 

First, I don't see any ultimate rejection of this concept whatsoever, so I'm not sure where you're even coming from. What is rejected is that only man, beast, or fowl could do it. The verses you've given answer the question quite well:

 

"...but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." and "...there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world."

 

The ability for Christ to provide an infinite atonement vs. man, beast, or otherwise is clearly laid out in the scriptures.

 

These things are taught SO plainly in the Book of Mormon and in literally thousands of talks by the prophets and apostles throughout the years. I am seriously flabbergasted than anyone could be wresting with these extremely plain scriptures. It's like you've taken one line of scripture entirely out of context and built a philosophy around it, pretty much ignoring everything else ever taught on the matter. I mean it says it right there... therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. As in (obviously) another man, beast or fowl cannot take my punishment for me, but Christ can! How can this mean anything but what it OBVIOUSLY means?

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.  

Edited April 25, 2015 by james12

[Finrock]

Good Evening James12,

 

You stated: "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."

 

QUESTION: What of those spirits in spirit prison? Does their punishment for their sins end when they repent or when the saving ordinances have been performed on Earth by proxy?

 

-Finrock

[Finrock]

The Guide to the Scriptures state the following:

 

"Jesus Christ is the great Redeemer of mankind because he, through his atonement, paid the price for the sins of mankind and made possible the resurrection of all people" (Emphasis added).

 

Price for sins or paid the price for sins is not found in scripture. What is found is:

 

"12 And forgive us our ^adebts, as we ^bforgive our debtors." Matt. 6:12

 

And

 

"4 And ^aforgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is ^bindebted to us. ^cAnd lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Luke 11:4

 

Forgiving debts would seem to imply some sort of transference, would it not?

 

-Finrock

[james12]

Good Evening James12,

 

You stated: "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."

 

QUESTION: What of those spirits in spirit prison? Does their punishment for their sins end when they repent or when the saving ordinances have been performed on Earth by proxy?

 

-Finrock

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.