Feedback requested to Alma 11:37


Recommended Posts

Could I get some responses/feedback to the notes I wrote to myself a few minutes ago during my morning scripture study please?

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their asins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that bno unclean thing can inherit the ckingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.


I have never understood this frequently referred to teaching. The way I see it, nobody is perfect when we die, therefore we all die in our sin. Our lack of perfection means that we are still prone to sin, still captured by, and enslaved by sin at the time of our death, so I think it can therefore be said that we all die in our sin. If what Amulek said was true - that Christ will not save us in our sins - and that none of us are sinless when we die, then none of us could be saved. But the reality is that some of us, even though we will not be sinless when we die, will be saved. So either I don't understand what is meant by the phrase dieing in our sins, or Amulek was not correct when he said that Christ will not save us in our sins. Of these two possibilities, its more likely that I am incorrect but I don't understand how or why.

(After a few minutes of thinking about it a bit more………..)

Perhaps I can follow Amulek's reasoning here. It is certain that many people, probably almost everyone, is not sinless when they die, so I think they die in their sins. It is also certain that many of these people will be saved. I'm happy to use Amulek's definition of being saved as meaning to inherit the kingdom of God. I accept the idea that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God and that our sins make us unclean. Taking into account all of the above, it would seem that when we die our sins that we die with make us unclean, and therefore we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fact that many of us will inherit the kingdom of heaven, even though we die in our sins creates the possibility that there is a way whereby in between the time that we die and the time we enter our final reward we can cleanse ourselves of the sins that we die with, thereby meeting the requirements to be saved in the kingdom of heaven. We could call this repentance after death and because probably none of us are sinless when we die, probably all of us will need to repent after death.

Could I get some thoughts/feedback/critiques/clarifications/corrections to these thoughts please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfection is a horizon, not a destination.

"In our sins" vs "From our sins" a good analogy would be "enslaving ourselves" vs "trying to escape bondage".

In the study of addiction we find that there are many different reasons why people remain addicted.  But there is only one reason they escape the addiction:  They keep trying.  No matter how many times they fail.  They keep trying.

Many who have just "resigned themselves" to captivity don't need any chains or guards.  They will never run away.  Even if they are rescued, they are never truly free.  They don't have the mindset of the free person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation leans toward the following principles:

1) The repentant vs. the unrepentant.

2) The Saint vs. the sinner.

In both cases, each individual is a sinner, or better said -- has sinned. The repentant individual is no longer "in sin" as they are alive in Christ. If we think the repentant (Saint) is "in sin" then what does this tell us of the blood of the lamb? When we come unto Christ, our perfection is through him -- who is without sin. As we are alive in Christ, through repentance, we are no longer "in" sin because he is without sin. This verse pays little respect to the individual (the fallen nature of man) as it highlights more of what the Savior does, not who we are -- but who we are becoming.

In that light, without Christ we are all "in" sin and there is nothing we can do ourselves. We are lost and we are fallen. Those who continue in this fallen state, by their choice, will to some degree be in their sins. Those who have recognized their lost and fallen state, the need of our Savior, will then repent and become perfected in Christ -- once again his perfection saves us -- or makes us holy without spot.  If we are without spot, and are holy, then we are for sure not "in" our sins, but saved from our sins because we know in whom we trust. Only confirming once again, that Christ is the only way to the Father.

This verse all the more testifies and witnesses the need of a perfect Savior, a perfect sacrifice, by which we become holy without spot (even while we progress toward perfection) otherwise we would never be able to enter the presence of God until we were perfect. But we will be long in his presence until that time in the eternities because of Christ.

 

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to understand the verse we must understand what it means to be saved (as used here). This is a pretty major point of departure from what many of our Christian friends believe. To many, saved is simply akin to being forgiven. You are a sinful being but God forgives you. I think we could use the word justified here. But we know there is a second part, being sanctified. Becoming a new person that no longer wants to commit the sin in the first place. This is being saved from sin and it's influence over us. This is the process of becoming not just forgiven but holy.  I think @Anddenex did a good job of elaborating on that process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Could I get some responses/feedback to the notes I wrote to myself a few minutes ago during my morning scripture study please?

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their asins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that bno unclean thing can inherit the ckingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.


I have never understood this frequently referred to teaching. The way I see it, nobody is perfect when we die, therefore we all die in our sin. Our lack of perfection means that we are still prone to sin, still captured by, and enslaved by sin at the time of our death, so I think it can therefore be said that we all die in our sin. If what Amulek said was true - that Christ will not save us in our sins - and that none of us are sinless when we die, then none of us could be saved. But the reality is that some of us, even though we will not be sinless when we die, will be saved. So either I don't understand what is meant by the phrase dieing in our sins, or Amulek was not correct when he said that Christ will not save us in our sins. Of these two possibilities, its more likely that I am incorrect but I don't understand how or why.

(After a few minutes of thinking about it a bit more………..)

Perhaps I can follow Amulek's reasoning here. It is certain that many people, probably almost everyone, is not sinless when they die, so I think they die in their sins. It is also certain that many of these people will be saved. I'm happy to use Amulek's definition of being saved as meaning to inherit the kingdom of God. I accept the idea that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God and that our sins make us unclean. Taking into account all of the above, it would seem that when we die our sins that we die with make us unclean, and therefore we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fact that many of us will inherit the kingdom of heaven, even though we die in our sins creates the possibility that there is a way whereby in between the time that we die and the time we enter our final reward we can cleanse ourselves of the sins that we die with, thereby meeting the requirements to be saved in the kingdom of heaven. We could call this repentance after death and because probably none of us are sinless when we die, probably all of us will need to repent after death.

Could I get some thoughts/feedback/critiques/clarifications/corrections to these thoughts please?

In principle, we inherit the kingdom of heaven as we repent, which is an ongoing, perfecting process throughout our mortal life (and not fully covered in the Book of Mormon, in the post-mortal spirit world). We materially realize our inheritance in the kingdom of heaven after the resurrection, so there is time before the resurrection to be cleansed from our sins through Christ. We also have the understanding of degrees of kingdom inheritance, which also is not addressed in the Book of Mormon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

being saved from our sins is synonymous with becoming clean.

Cleanliness is a gift from God to those that have faith and repent.

those who die in their sins are those who do not have faith and do not repent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the more critical side, I think it's fair to recognize that Amulek was not a particularly strong orator. And unfortunately, we don't get much else from him in the Book of Mormon to know if he got much better with time. 

In his defense, however, he was kind of new to this preaching thing. He was also being put on the spot by a very hostile and, we are told, skilled debate opponent. He may have been a little flustered. 

So let's deconstruct the message a bit by first backing up to verses 26 - 34. Zeezrom is questioning Amulek on the nature and existence of God, and it is Zeezrom who introduces the terminology "saved in sin." We aren't really sure what Zeezrom means by this, but Amulek kind of rolls with it. In response, Zeezrom says that Amulek is assuming the ability to command God by saying that He will not save people in their sins.  Verse 37 is an attempt by Amulek to clarify what he means. In my opinion, his clarification is rather muddled:

  • No unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven
  • You are unclean if you have sinned
  • You must inherit the kingdom of heaven to be saved

What's lacking in the immediate response is that repentance is the bridge from being unclean to becoming clean and inheriting the kingdom of heaven.  Amulek kinda-sorta gets around to that in verse 40, but it isn't very direct. So we kind of have to fill in the gaps. And then to top it off, he takes a tangent down physical resurrection in verses 41 - 45 that doesn't add much to his point about sinning, resurrection, and cleanliness.  These verses do give us an important hint, however, because they sound very similar to what Alma taught Corianton in Alma chapters 40-42.  In those chapters, Alma talks about sin, the Atonement, repentance, death, resurrection, and how all those concepts coexist right up until the resurrection, at which point we stand before God to be judged. 

If we take into account that Alma met Amulek in chapter 8 and recruited him to help teach, I would guess that the duration of time between chapter 8 and chapter 11 is somewhere in the vicinity of several days to a few weeks.  I like to think that Amulek's head is swimming in new information, and the teachings around the physical resurrection are new and exciting to him. In the way I envision these events, he's so excited about this new piece of knowledge and flustered enough by the intense confrontation he's in, that he simply forgets to add a certain part of the puzzle. The message he's trying to convey in verse 37 would come across more clearly if he had though to include some of the teachings in Alma chapter 5 (perhaps verses 26-27?).

So, in short, I don't think Alma 11:37 can be properly understood in isolation. It's an incomplete thought. Fortunately, there's enough information in Alma's teachings to help us complete the message Amulek was trying to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 2:23 PM, askandanswer said:

Could I get some responses/feedback to the notes I wrote to myself a few minutes ago during my morning scripture study please?

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their asins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that bno unclean thing can inherit the ckingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.


I have never understood this frequently referred to teaching. The way I see it, nobody is perfect when we die, therefore we all die in our sin. Our lack of perfection means that we are still prone to sin, still captured by, and enslaved by sin at the time of our death, so I think it can therefore be said that we all die in our sin. If what Amulek said was true - that Christ will not save us in our sins - and that none of us are sinless when we die, then none of us could be saved. But the reality is that some of us, even though we will not be sinless when we die, will be saved. So either I don't understand what is meant by the phrase dieing in our sins, or Amulek was not correct when he said that Christ will not save us in our sins. Of these two possibilities, its more likely that I am incorrect but I don't understand how or why.

(After a few minutes of thinking about it a bit more………..)

Perhaps I can follow Amulek's reasoning here. It is certain that many people, probably almost everyone, is not sinless when they die, so I think they die in their sins. It is also certain that many of these people will be saved. I'm happy to use Amulek's definition of being saved as meaning to inherit the kingdom of God. I accept the idea that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God and that our sins make us unclean. Taking into account all of the above, it would seem that when we die our sins that we die with make us unclean, and therefore we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fact that many of us will inherit the kingdom of heaven, even though we die in our sins creates the possibility that there is a way whereby in between the time that we die and the time we enter our final reward we can cleanse ourselves of the sins that we die with, thereby meeting the requirements to be saved in the kingdom of heaven. We could call this repentance after death and because probably none of us are sinless when we die, probably all of us will need to repent after death.

Could I get some thoughts/feedback/critiques/clarifications/corrections to these thoughts please?

I would add some thoughts.  There was a religious notion that we see trending even back to the time of Adam (and perhaps even to our pre-existence) concerning a problem of agency and how committing a sin excludes a person from the presents of G-d.  Most notably in the epoch (doctrine) of Baal we find a corruption of that atonement of Christ.  Baal was a demigod with a father in the Pagan notion of the G-d El and a mortal mother.  He sacrificed himself in a battle between "good and evil" and was brought back to life (resurrected to immorality) in a divine (magic) ritual.  Having been raised from the dead, Baal saves all of mankind from the underworld of hell.  Among the many differences or corruptions in the epoch of Baal as opposed to Christ and the atonement is this notion of mankind being saved in their sins.  The difference is that with Baal, no repentance is required and as been revealed in Christ man must enter into the covenant of baptism for the remission of sins.  

Anciently in the worship of Baal sins were celebrated and encouraged in the worship of Baal.  Primarily, sexual sins and acts of violence against enemies of Baal and the doctrine of all mankind being saved in their sins were ritually expressed in sexual activity (or sexual ogres of all kinds and types) and human sacrifices of those in opposition to Baal.  It is interesting to note in the doctrine epoch of Baal that only those that worshiped Baal were saved and that they were saved in their sins without repentance. 

It appears to me that Satan is not all that creative - that he, in essence, utilizes the same methods that were exploited in ancient times (perhaps even in the pre-existence) as he utilizes today.  I believe this is why we see sexual perversions being celebrated even now throughout our society.  That all sexual activity is considered acceptable and encouraged and that the conventual concept of marriage and family are opposed and even discouraged.

Thus I see the reference in Alma to not being saved "IN" sin as opposition of being saved "FROM" sin as a very important note explicit for our day and time as being very prophetic and part of the Last-days and conflict between good and evil.  That the tactics of Satan as well as the methods of G-d have not changed (see Ecclesiastes 1:9-10  Note here that it is my impression that verse 10 refers to the pre-existence).

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 1:23 PM, askandanswer said:

Could I get some responses/feedback to the notes I wrote to myself a few minutes ago during my morning scripture study please?

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their asins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that bno unclean thing can inherit the ckingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.


I have never understood this frequently referred to teaching. The way I see it, nobody is perfect when we die, therefore we all die in our sin. Our lack of perfection means that we are still prone to sin, still captured by, and enslaved by sin at the time of our death, so I think it can therefore be said that we all die in our sin. If what Amulek said was true - that Christ will not save us in our sins - and that none of us are sinless when we die, then none of us could be saved. But the reality is that some of us, even though we will not be sinless when we die, will be saved. So either I don't understand what is meant by the phrase dieing in our sins, or Amulek was not correct when he said that Christ will not save us in our sins.

[...]

My opinion:

You're overthinking this. Amulek offered a simple logical response to a straightforward, if dishonest, question from Zeezrom: Will God save us in our sins?

This is a yes or no question, and whichever answer Amulek gave, Zeezrom would have skewered him. Had Amulek answered "no", as expected, Zeezrom would have responded that such a God was unjust, partial, and certainly not All-Powerful.  Had Amulek answered "yes", Zeezrom would have asked Amulek what he was worrying about, then.

But Zeezrom wasn't expecting Amulek to answer with an explanation that exposed Zeezrom's lies. Amulek's answer was, in effect, "No, of course not. That's like asking if God will let us be dry in our wetness. It makes no sense. To be saved MEANS to be sinless, without spot. God cannot save us in our sins, because 'salvation in sin' has no meaning."

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thought provoking responses to my question of yesterday, which have helped to increase my understanding. Today I finished Alma 11 and started on Alma 12. In the chapter heading, which I realise is not scriptural, and is only a summary or reflection of scripture, it states that "The wicked will suffer spiritual death." So then I started to wonder how mortality and spiritual death are different from each other and wrote the following thoughts. Again, I would be thankful for people's feedback on this thought.  

Do mortality and spiritual death share the same characteristic of being seperated from God? Here in mortality, I cannot see or meet with God, I am seperated from Him. He can occasionally visit us, as He has occasionally chosen to do with some of His servants here and we know that He can visit the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms if He so chooses to do. It is also taught that God the Son, who is also God, and the Holy Ghost, who is also God, according to Alma 11:44, will be occasional visitors to kingdoms outside the celestial kingdom, so to that extent, occasional visits from God would seem to be a common characteristic of both mortality and post-mortal life outside the celestial kingdom. In mortality we can have a limited form of access to Him through prayer and I'm not sure if anything would or could prevent someone outside the celestial kingdom from having access to God through prayer. So it seems to me as if limited access to God is a common feature of both mortality and spiritual death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share