I've discussed this issue in the context of other threads here before, and gotten some very interesting feedback from dkw and dagonee in particular, but it was always tangential. I would very much like to hear from Christians on what purpose they believe Christ served and why He needed to be born and die in order to serve that purpose.
In the past, I have made the mistake of explaining what does not make sense to me about traditional explanations, only to have people spend time "correcting" my "understanding" of those explanations rather than giving me their own, so I will not do that here. Consider me a clean slate. I have no idea why God would need to take human form, and why God would need to suffer and die. I have no idea how this benefits God or humanity.
Can you explain it to me please?
(And if you are Christian and have not read my post in the other thread, let me assure you I am asking neither to criticize or mock, but out of a genuine desire to be able to wrap my head around the concept. So I am asking you, in essence, to bear witness, to share your testimony, or whatever phrase you use. So, it's almost your duty to respond, ne? )
Actually, I'm most interested in the dialog I hope would ensue, because I believe different Christians would answer the question differently, and that I can learn and best refine my own beliefs by observing the interaction between those beliefs.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
How familiar are you with Mormon scripture on the subject? You may have started a thread on this long ago before I was around, and I don't want to sound like a broken record.
The Book of Mormon does not completely answer the question, but it gives a bit more info.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I have not started a thread on this before, but simply danced around the question in other people's threads. That's why I didn't want to ask it in page seven of KarlEd's thread. I actually want people to answer me!
I think it's fair to say I am not very familiar at all with Mormon scripture on the subject. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If one man (Adam) can plunge mankind into a fallen state of mortality and depravity, then one man (Christ) can raise mankind to a state of immortality and exaltation.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hmm. First of all, you seem to be starting with an axiom I do not share, since I think that any truth in the Adam and Eve story is symbolic rather than literal. (Which is fine--that's not a criticism.)
But what I don't understand is what on Heaven or Earth God becoming corporeal and suffering and dying has to do with "[raising] mankind to a state of immortality and exaltation." Can you elaborate on that?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
This requires a discussion of the laws of Justice and Mercy, but my mind is too frazzled to do it any justice right now.
To sum up, I'll quote some lyrics from an old protestant hymn I used to sing in Church:
He paid a debt He did not owe I owed a debt I could not pay I needed someone to wash my sins away And now I sing a brand new song Amazing grace, the whole day long Christ Jesus paid a debt that I could never pay Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:But what I don't understand is what on Heaven or Earth God becoming corporeal and suffering and dying has to do with "[raising] mankind to a state of immortality and exaltation." Can you elaborate on that?
Immortality means resurrection of the physical body.. Christ made that possible by dying and rising again. (He was the only one who could do this - we don't know why, but there's some implication that He will teach us how.) Everyone is resurrected, and thus saved from "the first death."
Exaltation means attaining spiritual perfection by being saved from sin. This is offered to all, but conditional on our acceptance of it. Christ provided this by suffering for our sins in the Garden. If we accept His suffering on our behalf through true repentance, we overcome "the second death," which is spiritual death - being cut off from God because of our own sins. If we do not accept Christ's atonement, we have to suffer for our own sins. If we do accept it, and have a complete change of heart and truly repent, the sin is cleared and we are able to enter our Father's presence. Since our Father can not endure sin "with the least degree of allowance," and since we all commit sin, this is the only way to re-enter His presence.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
It's been said that if it were to be possible to enter into the presence of God with sin, the deep and penetrating shame that would come upon us would be far worse than any sort of hell, or separation from God, could be.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:If one man (Adam) can plunge mankind into a fallen state of mortality and depravity, then one man (Christ) can raise mankind to a state of immortality and exaltation.
I don't fully agree with your reasoning here. Are you referring to "as in Adam all men die, so in Christ are all made alive"? That much is true, but it's not so much about them both being men, that implies that anyone could have done those things. As the firstborn and the only one worthy enough, Christ is the only one who could have performed the atonement.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Just a sidenote to other Mormons - now I'm all curious about why Christ could be resurrected. Is it related to His role as creator? Is there any official doctrine about this?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Sins, things that separate us from the presence of God, need to be dealt with. Removed. They have to be atoned for.
Other humans cannot atone for my sins, because they have their own to atone for. Just like you wouldn't take a loan from someone who was poor, and the only money they had was from taking out a loan from someone else who was also taking out a loan.
Christ is the only person ever born on earth who wasn't 'taking out a loan'. He never accrued the debt. He never sinned. He had no sins to atone for.
Thus, he is the only one who could atone for others' sins, without having to atone for his own first.
This was His most important mission - if he had sinned, even once, the mission would have failed. the moment he had to atone for a sin he personally committed himself, the plan would have been utterly wasted.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
OK, I will start rambling and see where it takes me.
First, there is the doctrine in the LDS faith that what happened in the Garden of Gethsemane was actually an extremely crucial part of Christ's atonement. We believe it was there that Christ's sufferings began, and they were of a spiritual/emotional nature more than a physical nature. But the suffering was so intense that it caused Him to bleed at every pore and (I don't know if it was a necessity or a mercy) an angel appeared to give Him strength and comfort. We believe this was the part of the atonement that terrified Christ so much. It is not something we really understand, but it seems to be that He basically experienced Hell for all the sins of mankind wrapped in a nutshell.
While it is not doctrine, some speculate that this suffering continued throughout the last moments of His life, exacerbating the physical agony He went through. So when people say that "He was God. What did physical suffering mean to Him?" or "Some sacrifice, if He knew that after being dead for three days He'd be gloriously ressurrected." Mormons shake their head at this and think, "you say this because you don't know the whole story."
How it happened or just what it was like, we don't know. But we have this from the Doctrine and Covenants section 19:
quote:15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.
Just an aside, when the scripture say stuff like "lest I smite you with the rod of my mouth", I don't see this as an arbitrary thing. I see this as God represents The Way Things Are, and if we try to bend that, we end up breaking ourselves against it. So to me it is more of a natural consequences of the Laws of the Universe which God represents and protects rather than a "smiting session".
Anyway, the idea presented here is that what Christ suffered was Hell (if only for a brief time), and He is offering us a chance to avoid it. He compares Hell to the way it feels when God's spirit has left you after you have known and enjoyed its companionship.
OK, so onto the next subject.
A couple of times the atonement is referred to in the Book of Mormon as an "infinite atonement" and it is said that if it were not infinite, it couldn't work. This passage from Alma 34 expounds the idea a bit:
quote:9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
11 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.
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
OK, so this presents an idea that isn't really explained. It makes a distinction between Christ's sacrifice and any human sacrifice that could be possible. It explains that Christ's sacrifice was infinite, when none other could be. Why is this? It doesn't really say here.
I have thought that it's a little like God deciding to divide by zero. It doesn't make sense. It is an inversion of justice. The idea here is that God, the creator of the universe--(we believe that though Christ is a separate being from the Father, He is every bit as much "God", and that He did the actual creating under the direction of the Father.)--who never broke the law in any way but lived in perfect obedience to the Father, would willingly suffer both death and hell, even if only temporarily, would "stir things up" on a cosmic level.
I will insert here that it is specific LDS doctrine that the sacrifice was given willingly, and that Christ was chosen before the earth was even created, and that our pre-mortal selves (non-corporeal at the time) witnessed the whole thing. We believe that Lucifer, our brother, volunteered to be the Savior of Mankind and do things his own way. All we "know" is that he claimed he would redeem *all* men. (Most believe he would have done this by removing man's agency. If man cannot choose anything, he can't choose evil, right?)
From Isaiah:
quote:Isa. 6: 8
8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
From the Pearl of Great Price:
quote:Moses 4: 1
1 AND I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I• will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
Also from the Pearl of Great Price:
quote:Abr. 3: 27
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
This touches on the ideas of a particular LDS "theologian" and speaker named Cleon Skousen. I think a lot of LDS may not agree with what he taught, but he said some things that have really resonated with me and come closer to anything I have ever heard to really explaining the atonement.
He puts forth the idea of God's glory coming from His honor. The idea for this apparently came from this scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants section 29:
quote: 36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
The Book of Mormon already says in numerous places that if God did ____ He would cease to be God. The idea is put forth strongly that God *cannot* do anything, at least not and remain God. He has to maintain balance and order in the universe. Skousen extrapolates that the universe upholds and "worships" God because He can be fully trusted to do this. Skousen puts forth the idea of a universe full of intelligence, that all matter is filled with it. That matter can actually respond to God, and does so because God upholds His honor and the integrity of all reality. (There is some evidence of this in LDS scripture, but it is indirect.)
So God walks a narrow road. The idea is that according to the natural laws of the universe, after man had fallen and become sinful in nature, he could not return to the presence of God. To award man in this state would, in effect (according to Skousen) cause an uprising--a rebellion of the universe rejecting God for His "favoritism" and "injustice".
The only way to overcome this was through Christ's infinite atonement. The idea is that since man cannot on his own follow God perfectly in his fallen state, he would be given a new law that he was capable of following. Faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and enduring in obedience to God to the best of their ability, repenting as they go to correct their path when it strays.
The idea he puts forth is that when Christ claims someone as "His" and redeemed before the Father, pure and holy in spite of the harm and imbalance they have caused, the universe will view His sacrifice and sufferings and be moved to comply, not for the benefit of the one who sinned, but for Christ's sake. A similar idea is presented in the following scripture from Doctrine and Covenants section 45:
quote: 3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
4 Saying: 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;
I don't know if this makes any more sense than any other explaination you've ever heard. And I'm not even sure it is what I actually believe, but I find it very interesting.
At least you are in a great position to now tell me all the things that don't make any sense to you. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Just a sidenote to other Mormons - now I'm all curious about why Christ could be resurrected. Is it related to His role as creator? Is there any official doctrine about this?
Maybe it had to do with the fact that while He inherited mortality from His earthly mother, He inherited the "un-fallen" nature of His Father.
Un-fallen, and never broke the law. And suffered the full punishment as though He did break it anyway. I imagine He was an exception to the rule several times over.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Annie:
From "Answers to Gospel Questions" by Joseph Fielding Smith:
quote:A word or two showing how it was possible for Jesus Christ to come and redeem us is necessary at this point. Jesus had no father of the flesh, that is who was mortal and subject to death. Our Eternal Father to whom we pray is the Father of the body of Jesus Christ and from his Father he inherited life and death was always subject to him. He had the power to lay down his life, because he was the Son of Mary who was like us, mortal, and he had the power to take his life up again for that power was in him. In his teachings to the Jews and his disciples he frequently told them of this power and of his mission. On one occasion he said:
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man [God].(John 5:26-27.)
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.(Ibid., 10:17-18.)
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Very cool.
I wonder if they'll let me take that book on the mish.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Don't think so. This is why the Missionaries always pull me along when they have an appointment with someone they think is anti-ish. They know I have a Nice Library, and Internet Access
My "Paul Lite" history as an ex-anti may have something to do with it, too.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you so far . . .
A couple of questions/thoughts: My own perception of an afterlife, postulating that there is one--which I'm by no means convinced of--is that Hell would be separation from communion with the Creator, caused perhaps by pride or despair, while heaven would be communion. Further, while our actions in life may lead us to one choice or another, I believe it is we who condemn ourselves if we do not join with God, and I believe we still have the capacity to make this choice after death. I don't know if this is contrary to your beliefs, but I have heard many Hatrackers express beliefs which are not inconsistent with this. Trying to fit what you are saying within this framework, would it be accurate to say that you believe we are incapable of choosing communion because of the shame we feel for our sins, except for the fact that Christ died for them? Would it be going to far then to say that Christ's life and death are a gesture that give us hope, rather than believing that there is an actual mechanism by which one life "balances out" a number of sins? (I realize this is not what any of you LDS have said. I'm asking if this idea contradicts your doctrine.)
Jacare posted a notion of the mechanism of suffering in the other thread to which many people seemed to respond favorably. If suffering is a mechanism of learning, of what value do you think "eternal suffering" or "damnation" is? Or do you believe that one can never be eternally damned, that some may, in the end, choose this fate, but that they always have the power to change their choice, if only they would (because of Jesus's sacrifice)?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Annie:
quote:it's not so much about them both being men
If Christ was more than just a man, then so was Adam. Christ did not have a mortal father; neither did Adam. Christ committed zero sins; Adam committed just one, and that was not much of a sin, considering that he was supposed to do it.
Anyway, it's all part of a balanced package. Without the transgression of one, you don't need the sacrifice of the other. Nobody else could have filled either role.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I believe it is we who condemn ourselves if we do not join with God, and I believe we still have the capacity to make this choice after death.
This actually sounds pretty close to LDS belief, at least how I believe.
quote: My own perception of an afterlife, postulating that there is one--which I'm by no means convinced of--is that Hell would be separation from communion with the Creator, caused perhaps by pride or despair, while heaven would be communion.
Again, not that far off from LDS view, though I understand Hell will also be full of intense regret.
quote:Would it be going to far then to say that Christ's life and death are a gesture that give us hope, rather than believing that there is an actual mechanism by which one life "balances out" a number of sins?
I have actually thought this to be the case. I didn't think to say it in my earlier post, but I believe that part of why the scriptures stress needing "faith in Christ" to receive salvation is that we *will* condemn ourselves, and we won't be able to let go of that except through faith that Christ's atonement works. So it isn't so important *how* it works, but the effect it has on our psyche.
quote:If suffering is a mechanism of learning, of what value do you think "eternal suffering" or "damnation" is?
The LDS believe in two different types of Hell. One comes before our ressurrection (we believe both good and evil will be ressurrected, and that at that time we will also stand before God to account for ourselves.) and can end when we accept the gospel and repent for our sins. (Though it has been postulated that repenting without the "benefit" of our mortal bodies is much more difficult than repenting "with". Maybe less opporunity for restoring good for the bad we did? We believe that part of repentance is living righteously after the sin.) We believe in three kingdoms of glory (or heaven). The highest can only be attained by those who were valiant with their understanding of the gospel--quick to be drawn to goodness, trustworthy in the responsibilities God placed on them. The second kingdom is inhabited by those who accepted Christ, but not fully. They are considered "good people". The third probably didn't accept Christ, but accepted goodness to some level. The third is related to stars, there being many and vast difference in the brightness of one star compared to another.
The other Hell is reserved for those who are "unredeemable". Monsters akin to Satan and his followers. They reject even the smallest amount of God's goodness, and so no good can come to them. They are basically "sluffed off" as useless. And since we believe the soul cannot cease to exist, annihilation is not an option for them.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
(have not read other responses before writing this, forgive me if I repeat someone else's feelings ... )
We are born as human beings, frail and fault-filled, weak and fragile. We suffer from ailments great and small, we are tempted to do wrong for a host of reasons (many times because the wrong way is the easiest way). We are born of a world that affects us by events outside of the scope of our reach, we do not control life but live within the whims of fate. Tragedy befalls us, others wrong us and it is easy to give up and give in in the face of this.
And we are spiritual beings as well. God has set forth before us what is required of us to grow spiritually and to attain betterness. But in our earthly existance, it is so easy, so inevitable almost for us to give up hope, to shun what is right. And it is so easy to say to God, "You've made the rules and set the standards, but you do not suffer from the imperfections, aches, pains, needs that we do. We are handicapped to the point at which we can never attain what You ask of us."
And then, the Father becomes the Son. God, in a way, is no longer on the untouchable throne, but is human, true and full. He lives as we do, He suffers in the worst ways we can endure. And He shows us the Way.
Jesus was probably picked on as a boy by the local bullies. He had days when he may have not had enough to eat. He grew up in and lived in a society conquered by a foreign power. He was born the son of a simple carpenter who had to leave home to protect his family. He was born in a manger meant for animals, not for people.
He preached a Gospel that changed the beliefs and challenged the lives of his own and all other peoples. And he was just, a man.
Jesus had to go to the bathroom. He probably suffered from colds and other ailments, just as you and I do. He walked from town to town and I am certain that His feet hurt and on hot days, He suffered and sweated. He lost people from His life that He loved and regularly was confronted by people that hated Him and worked directly to ruin Him and those people around Him.
And after working to teach, heal and show the path, He was persecuted, tortured and put to death (in one of the most horrid ways of the time) purely for trying to do the right thing. How many times have we said, "I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't"? Jesus lived under that every single day.
But he did it for the Hope that He provided. He did it to provide the simplest of truths. He did it to say, "I am the Way. I am the Light."
What is the Way? What is the Light? I believe that it is, at its core, a deep and true acknowledgement that God, through Christ, knows what each of us is going through. That through Christ, God has suffered as each of us has. And in that, He has told us, believe and acknowledge the Messiah who is one of you, who has suffered and who will forgive you for your transgressions -- for He has walked in your footsteps and has laid the path open before you.
Christ, in my opinion, is God putting out his hand to each and every human being and saying, Reach out and I will help you. Take My hand and be not afraid. I am divine but of you as well. I forgive those willing to accept and your suffering I have felt as well. My Son, and therefore I, know the path of your life and have walked it to.
You are not alone and will never be alone.
That is why I think Christ is the most important truth to Humanity and why He had to exist. But I'm just a simple person of extremely limited wisdom, so take of it what you will.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm sorry, I forgot the most important part: the Resurrection.
And after the pain, the suffering and death, Christ arose from the grave and walked amongst us again, spiritually and corporeally. He showed, as a man of flesh and blood, that the death we all fear, is not the End. His Life shows the start of the Path, His Ascension shows that the Path goes on. And He shows the Way.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
bev, I think it's prudent to talk about where spirits go prior to the Resurection. Mainly because it's a crutial part of what we're talking about here.
I would do it, but you and Taalcon seem to have an ownership of the LDS viewpoint. Plus, it's nice to read both of your points of view.
Thanks for a polite religion thread, Icky.
[ July 16, 2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: scottneb ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sopwith, I find your thoughts very interesting. Would it be fair then to say that you believe that Jesus's main purpose was to serve as an example and a reason to hope, and that you don't believe his death was in order for him to "pay a price" for the sins of other people, or have I read too far into what you wrote?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I believe that both are very much the reason. I do believe, however, that "paying a price" just doesn't quite explain it. There's something much more than a price.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't believe that Christ died merely to "serve an example." I believe the atonement was substitutionary.
God's law is just, and must be honoured. The penalty for sin is death, so only death could purchase redemption of sin.
There's a quick recap of atonement theories and a defense of the substitutionary, penal theory at the link below.
quote: God's law had to be honoured. God could never accept something less. This, Christ did by his perfect conformity to the law: "I have not come to destroy the Law and the prophets; but to fulfil them." But, in dying as a substitute, he had to endure the penalty of the same law, which is death.
Thus, what was impossible for us to do, Christ did on our behalf and as our representative. The following elements come to the fore in Scripture, when it speaks of Christ's atonement:
1. All men are sinners.
2. All sinners are in desperate peril because of their guilt.
3. Salvation takes place only because God in his love wills it and brings it about.
4. Salvation depends on what God has done in Christ.
5. Both the Godhead and the manhood of Christ are involved in the process.
6. Christ was personally innocent.
7. While the importance of the life of Christ is not to be minimised, central importance is attached to His death (active and passive obedience).
8. In His death Christ made Himself one with sinners. He took their place (2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 3:18, etc.).
9. By his life, death, resurrection and ascension Christ triumphed over Satan and sin and every conceivable force of evil (Colossians 2).
10. Christ secured a verdict. He accomplished salvation powerfully, but also legally. God is able to justify sinners on the basis of his death (Romans 3:26).
11. In his death Christ revealed the nature of God as love (1 John 4:10; Romans 5:6,8,10).
12. These events demand from us a response: God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17). Evidently Christ's death was substitutionary, vicarious, and penal. This is where the whole weight of prophetic and apostolic testimony falls.
Many more articles on the atonement from the Reformed view can be found here:
All this debt and repayment. Is this a banker's view of the world?
I'm really not being snarky. It's just what keeps coming up, and what I don't understand about the whole thing.
Nice thread, Icky.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
My recommendation is the book of Romans, up through, oh, Chapter 8 or 9. It lays out the problem and the solution. I wouldn't claim it's easy to understand or that it answers all the questions, but it's a good starting point. And, after all, in discussing a religion that has a book, it only makes sense to read the book. (Which explains why I don't discuss Islam much -- I haven't read it!)
There does seem to be a debt aspect. There's also an aspect of us being "dead" and needing some supernatural CPR, "being raised with Him," to be regenerated. Anyway, how could I not want Christ to be involved in making me good -- now that I know him?
Thanks for starting this thread; it made me think about this question in a new way.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:All this debt and repayment. Is this a banker's view of the world?
This is actually the way it's described most. Only with a slight variation.
Imagine you owe a debt to the bank that you could not possibly pay back. The debtor will throw you in prison for non-repayment. Then someone comes to you and tells you that if you work for him he will repay the debt for you.
That's the basic story told throughout LDS Seminary, with all the descriptors taken out.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Does Christ ever speak of it as a debt to be accrued and paid? Or is the idea of a debt just a human convention that makes it more understandable to us?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Imagine you owe a debt to the bank that you could not possibly pay back. The debtor will throw you in prison for non-repayment. Then someone comes to you and tells you that if you work for him he will repay the debt for you.
In the Protestant view, the debt gets paid for you, and no "work" required on your part. That's unmerited grace.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Scottneb, I didn't think of that. I'm not at my most lucid at the moment (feeling sleepy.) Feel free to explain it if you wanna.
Belle, we believe that the "work" required on our part is: Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring in the right way to the best of our ability, repenting of our sins along the way.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Meh. I think I'll stick with ignorance vs. enlightenment.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So I'm wondering how long before somebody starts a "Why do we need Chris?" dobie.
Bridges and Kidd, I'm sorry.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Here are some more scriptures from 2 Nephi, chapter 2, in the Book of Mormon that may help. These are the words of a prophet, Lehi, who was speaking to his sons before he died:
quote: 4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen• from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family• of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.
30 I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.
This is a great passage that indicates why there must be opposites in all things--why there must be good and evil. If I am not mistaken, C.S. Lewis used a similar line of reasoning to discuss why good cannot exist without evil.
Here is a little more from Alma chapter 34 in the Book of Mormon:
quote:15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.
16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.
17 Therefore may God grant unto you, my brethren, that ye may begin to exercise your faith unto repentance, that ye begin to call upon his holy name, that he would have mercy upon you;
(edited to remove footnotes)
[ July 16, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Marlozhan ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you for your input, Marlozhan. I have a few questions/comments, and I want to assure you first that it is not my intention to be rude, but to ask you to elucidate for me if possible.
Your first scripture quote seems to be concerned with the question of "Why is there evil/suffering?" which is not actually my question. It may be more relevant to KarlEd's thread.
On that question, and on my question of the necessity of Jesus dying "for" our sins, though, both scriptures seem to simply assert the doctrine that I am trying to understand, but not explain it in a way that communicates to me. He says, as though it is self-evident, that there can be no good without evil. Is this self-evident? (Just an example, not my main concern.) Similarly, he asserts that if there is no God we could not possibly exist. Is this self-evident? He also asserts that Christ's death was necessary so that mercy could overpower justice . . . but that's precisely what I don't get.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Icarus, I posted the passage about good and evil because I believe that it is central to why Christ had to suffer for our sins. You cannot say that sins need to be paid for until you know why there must be sin, and also righteousness--why there must be good and evil. If there were no good or evil, Christ's sacrifice would have been pointless.
In answer to one of your questions, I believe that it is self-evident that good cannot exist without evil. That does not mean they have to exist in the same place at the same time, just as hell does not reside with heaven. But how could you have good without evil any more than you could have hot without cold. If there was no such thing as cold, hot would be meaningless. If there was no evil in existence, it would mean nothing to say that you are good. It seems self-evident to me, but maybe not everyone sees it the same way.
However, don't get me wrong, these scriptures are not supposed to be self-evident philosophical arguments. I intended them to be scriptures, not meant to be comprehensive in their arguments. By scripture's very nature, I believe that to only study them as you would philosophy throws faith out the window and contradicts the purpose of scriptures. I am not saying that scriptures should not be logical or reasonable, but they do not have to provide philosophical rationale for every point.
Don't get me wrong, I am not upset at all from your response, just trying to clarify my intentions. I firmly believe, as I know many other Mormons do, that the only true way for an individual to gain undeniable knowledge is to study God's word, seek him in prayer and ask him if what you are reading is true. If you are sincere and diligent in your studying and your asking, you will receive spiritual knowledge from God that you cannot deny, though you will be unable to PROVE it to anyone else through reason alone, anymore than I can prove to you what salt tastes like if you have not tasted it. So, i guess what I'm saying is that I posted this as a supplement for your research and curiosity.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Why do we need Christ? Because we die. Christ is the only possible solution to that.
We die because we are in rebellion against the Creator, which places us at odds with the Continuing Source of all life (we are NOT naturally immortal in ourselves) and we base our lives on self-love rather than on self-sacrificing love for others. God has removed part of His control over our bodies and over nature in general, and has allowed our physical bodies to suffer the same consequences we see in the natural realm as it is subjected to the tyrannical rule of self-seeking. Thus we can see the natural end result of that way of living, in the blood and gore of nature, and the lesson comes home beyond all deniability when we are confronted with our own mortality. But God also has preserved in nature, and leads some human individuals, in giving examples of beauty and cooperation and sacrifice for the benefit of others, so we can see there is another way for things to be.
The only way we can be rescued from ultimate annihilation is for God to assume full parental responsibility for us, and in Himself execute the just sentence against the selfish murderers that we all are. As Creator, He has paid in full, like a Co-signer, the debt we owe to all that is right and good for falling short, and He has established a new inheritance for us in Himself, as a new human race with Him as the Head and Representative of us all, which we can join by choosing to accept it.
The details of how salvation works is complex, so much so that even angels do not yet fully understand it. We will probably be studying it in eternity, and periodically will discover yet new and startling depths and profundities in it.
Christ is the Creator. Only He could save us, by joining Himself to us all by taking all humanity into Himself.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Very well said!
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Here's something that I've been noodling:
I've been thinking about race quite a bit lately and this popped into my head: Christ very well could have been another race. Now, I understand that when you read that statement it sounds loaded, but hear me out. I'm not saying that Christ was another race. I'm saying that given different circumstances, he very well could have been.
Through revelation given by prophets in the LDS church, we understand that the only reason Christ was sent to the area he was sent to, was because that was the only place he could be sent where the people would kill their own savior. If, perhaps, the asian cultures had dominated that area (and had become as corrupt) Christ would have been Asian, right? If there were an African society that was corrupt enough to kill their Savior, Christ could have been African, right?
My point isn't to derail the thread (which has been very good up to this point, BTW). My point is this: there are a lot of religions that paint the Caucasian race as the perfect race based solely on Christ being Caucasian. I find a huge amount of flaws in this because Christ's race was completely coincidental. Just a thought.
[/derail]
[rerail]
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
erm, Christ was Caucasian?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
*applauds Ron*
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:erm, Christ was Caucasian?
You should visit Northern Idaho sometime.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Yes, Christ was Caucasian (wikipedia's take: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race ). I don't see that it makes any difference (Christ's racial category, or anyone's for that matter), but there it is.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In that usage, yes, Christ may well have been caucasian (though his parents could well have had african heritage, for all we know).
Most of the churches which justify caucasian superiority based on seeing christ as caucasian interpret caucasian in the north american way as noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian
That is, white.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
But, do you get my point?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Christ may well have been caucasian (though his parents could well have had african heritage, for all we know).
I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe I missed something, but isn't Christ's heritage a big part of who he is? I mean, being descended from a royal Hebrew lineage? He wasn't just some random guy. It was important to his Jewish followers that he actually BE a Jew, and a particularly well-bred one at that.
I don't think he could have gained the followership that he did unless he looked like a native in the nation whose throne he claimed.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Why do we need Christ?
Because Mortal (either human or animal) Sacrifice cannot atone for sin. And Sin leads to both spiritual and physical death. Because we humans (and animals) are uncontrollably subject to sin and death, we don't have the Infinite capacity to do anything about that as mortals. As part of the problem, mortals aren't the solution. We have become helpless to the Justice that "Universal Law" demands. It is because of the Fall of Adam and Eve that mortals have aquired our sinful nature and death.
The only kind of Sacrafice acceptable to the "Universal Law" is an Infinite Atonement. The only Infinite Being is a God. Yet, a God cannot die. They are, by definition, immortal and without sin.
That is why Jesus was born of a mortal Mother and an immortal (infinite) Father. In that way he could retain his Godlike Immortality, and yet have human attributes of pain, blood, and death. In effect, he took upon himself the powers of both death and immortality. He could live and die, suffer and overcome by his own will. That is what he did. He suffered and died, and then came back to life. Having paid the price that "Universal Law" demands, Jesus Christ was free to despense Justice and Mercy. For whatever reason, his sacrifice was sufficiant to help us mortals overcome sin and death that we couldn't, and still can't, on our own.
I define "Universal Law" as theological premises that must be accepted before the idea of a "Christ" can be understood. To put it another way, we need Christ because that is what my Religion teaches and I have faith in my Religion. You cannot fully understand our need for Christ if you do not have Faith in Chirst. Otherwise it will seem to you, as Paul said, just a fable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, whether Christ possesses or does not possess various lines of descent does not rule out numerous other ancestral lines, for obvious reasons. By that time everyone in the heavily jewish communities likely had a strong line of descent from david!
As for it being important to his followers that he was a well bred jew, I think that's sort of amusing on the face of it. He was the son of a poor carpenter who found his first disciples among fishermen and made his flock by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, and by reaching out to those shunned by society. Where do you see it being important for Jesus to be a "well bred" jew?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Through revelation given by prophets in the LDS church, we understand that the only reason Christ was sent to the area he was sent to, was because that was the only place he could be sent where the people would kill their own savior.
I understand this idea to be (1) not a statement as to the level of corruption of the people in first century Palestine (they were no worse than people anywhere else, and probably better than most), but rather to the fact that (2) these were the only people who worshiped the true God. There would have been no point in sending Christ to your hypothetical corrupt kingdom in Africa, Asia, or wherever -- I'm sure he could have been killed there, but it wouldn't have meant anything, because nobody there had a clue -- nobody there worshiped God or had read any of the prophecies. They weren't expecting any savior.
And speaking of clues, the role of the Roman Empire is quite striking. The greatest secular power the world had EVER known, so *they* probably should have had a clue, but nope . . . their crowning achievement was to crucify Christ.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Wow! So many scriptures. I'm thinking maybe a summary answer is called for.
We needed an example.
We needed to be shown not what it meant to be human (who doesn't know that from experience?) but what it means to be human and divine. That is our true nature and we seem to forget it.
Christ is the ultimate (and the penultimate) example -- according to Scripture. What makes him different from us is his awareness of his divine nature. But he spent a lot of time telling us how we could do the same things he did. In other words, short of inserting the knowledge into us and taking away our free will, Christ is the best thing God could do to show us what we really are capable of.
To me, this is an answer that builds directly from Scripture and applies to all people, regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Even those who view Jesus as (merely) a prophet or simply an historical figure (about whom we know a little or a lot with varying degrees of certainty).
Because even if you secularize my proposed answer and say "Jesus was just a good man who did <insert accomplishments list here>" you can still use him as an example of how to live a good life.
In fact, even if you decide for yourself that most of the stories about Jesus are myth and legend, those myths and legends still represent a good example of how to life a good life.
So, in short, everyone can encounter the Christ and get something good from that instance.
(NOTE: I say "can" not "will" in the above sentence. It is as much up to the individual as ever. Human nature being what it is. Or isn't)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can be comfortable with the idea that God became human to provide us with an example. I just can't buy into this idea that someone had to suffer to pay for our sins and that's what he did. It doesn't make any sense to me. People are welcome to continue to try to make it make sense to me, of course. (If you say it's all about faith and I just don't have it, well, then what can I say. I guess you're right.)
Is this view of dying in payment for our sins "dogma" in all Christian denominations, or, in some faiths, can you merely believe the former?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus...
I'd have to defer to those who've studied this from an academic perspective. I think the reference to Scripture in explaining the necessity of the sacrifice (specifically the "blood") is ultimately circular. It's important because Scripture says it is. And it comes down to faith.
But, I do think there's some fascinating studies into what this meant to the early Christians and why specifically a blood sacrifice would've made sense, etc. Why a death was the price of atonement.
I don't have a ready answer for that. Or even much of a thought. I don't deny the sacrifice, but I also don't claim to understand it. I don't know if it necessary to my faith, but I do agree that it is a major tenet of the religion I practice. That without that sacrifice the way to eternal life would be barred.
On the face of it, I also think that God could do whatever God wants. So, what barrier to salvation could there possibly be if God didn't want it there? Why would God demand a life as the price of opening the path?
Or...was it the humans of the time? Suppose the limiting factor was the human being. If the people then would only understand and believe the extraordinary and the sacrificial, then the point of it all is found inside our own cognition, not in God's.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Another thing to look at is Christ's role as Redeemer. I'm skimming through "Answers to Gospel Questions" by Joseph Feilding Smith, so I might wander. "Our Redeemer came into the world to obtain mastery over death." We in the LDS faith, believe that God the Father (God) and God the Son (Christ) are two completely different people. Christ came to Earth to get a body and die just as we do. But, He was going to be resurrected to show us that it in fact, can be done. With the knowledge he gained through this experience, he will help us at the time of the Resurrection to obtain victory over death just as He did.
Keep in mind that one of the reasons for us coming to earth is to get a body. Once resurrected our spirits and our bodies will never be separated again.
Now for me to continue on with this discussion, you need to understand what we call "The Plan of Salvation." Here's a breakdown:
Premortal Existance: This is just what it says. This describes the time prior to us coming to Earth and is the time The Plan was devised. During this time, we had no body and during the majority of the time we existed as "intellegences" waiting to be organized. A few things to note about this time (these are taken by a lesson by Ted Gibbons):
--We have always existed in some form. --We were begotten there as children of God --Gender is a premortal characteristic --Earth was created as a place to prove us. --We met in counsel and listened to the Father's plan and then to an opposing plan presented by Lucifer --One third part of the Father's children destined for this earth followed Lucifer in his rebellion and were cast out with him.
Mortal Life:
Basically, this is the here and now. We were sent here to obtain our bodies and prove ourselves to God. What we do here, determines what rewards are given after death.
After Earth Life:
This is were things get complicated. But, once you get a basic understanding, it shouldn't be too bad. There are two timeframes we should concentrate on:
--Prior to the Resurrection:
A person dies but the Resurrection hasn't taken place yet, now what?
During the time before the Resurrection we are sent to one of two places: Spirit Prison or Spirit Paradise. The easiest way to describe this is the good spirits go to paradise, while the bad spirits go to prison (It's a little more complex than this, but this post is getting really drawn out). During this time, those spirits in prison will have a chance to hear and accept the gospel at which point they will move to paradise.
--After the Resurrection
Once we are reunited with our bodies, we are sent to one of four different places: Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, Telestial Kingdom, or Outer Darkness. These are usually compared to the Sun (Celestial), Moon (Terrestrial), Stars (Telestial), and the darkness (Outer Darkness). These comparisons, refer to the "degree of glory" each kingdom has.
This is a basic outline of The Plan of Salvation. It is key to understanding some of the things that have been and will be brought up in this discussion by other Latter-Day Saints. With this outline laid out, I can go into Christs role a little more in depth.
But, that's another post.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Okay, now to the role of Redeemer. This shouldn't be too long. Now that we have a basic understanding about The Plan, we can hit the nail on the head.
In the scriptures, we are taught that no unclean thing may be in the presence of God. If we read through the Bible, we see that very few people have actually see God. This is simply because there have been very few people clean enough to be in His presence. The story of the brother of Jerod is a prime example of this.
Now, we come to Earth and what do we do? We sin. Like crazy! So how then do we expect to be in the presence of God after we die? No person on Earth (besides Christ) is sinless. Therefore, no person but Christ can even be around God. Kinda sucks, eh? Well this is where Christ comes in. He came to Earth and through his godly power, kept himself alive to feel the pain of every sin. The pain was so great, he bled from every pore and caused him to question whether he should continue. Because he did this, He can step in and through the process of repentance, take our sins upon himself making us pure once again. In effect He is a Mediator.
I hope this explains some things.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: In the scriptures, we are taught that no unclean thing may be in the presence of God.
quote: No person on Earth (besides Christ) is [clean]
To me, this just doesn't fit with the LDS view that we're sent here to learn. To get the right answers you have to get the wrong answers sometimes. So long as your learn from your mistakes, the mistakes are worth making. I don't know any teacher that would declare a student horribly unclean just because they got a wrong answer or two.
If God sent us here to defile ourselves, that's God's fault, not ours. I don't understand why WE should have the threat of eternal suffering for something we have no control over.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:If God sent us here to defile ourselves, that's God's fault, not ours. I don't understand why WE should have the threat of eternal suffering for something we have no control over.
Interesting enough THAT is why we have Christ's Atonement. Because of this thing called "Justice" our sins would automatically cause us to eternally suffer. However, now that Christ suffered FOR us there is a way back to God's Presence because we can now be forgiven of our sins. In other words, Christ made it possible for us to get the answers wrong without making us eternally suffer for our mistakes at a cosmic level.
I have heard it described somewhat like the law of Conservation of Energy. In the mortal state all things lose energy and eventually desintegrate. Sin works as a spiritual desintegration, eventually bringing us tremendous suffering after death if not now. Christ, as a generator of spiritual and even physical energy, can replenish (or change) our natures so that the law of Conservation of Energy does not have full effect on our spirits. Eventually, this Abundance of Energy eminating from Christ will quicken dead bodies and make them immune to degeneracy of body and spirit. Now, without Christ all things would eventually lose Energy and become desintegrated into the basics of existance.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:If God sent us here to defile ourselves, that's God's fault, not ours. I don't understand why WE should have the threat of eternal suffering for something we have no control over.
I want to concentrate on the second sentence mostly.
The fact is, we do have control over being here. Every one of us agreed to the Plan prior to coming here. I can break it down even further: You wanted a body. But, you had to come here and prove yourself worthy of having it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Because of this thing called "Justice" our sins would automatically cause us to eternally suffer.
That doesn't sound very just.
quote: I have heard it described somewhat like the law of Conservation of Energy. In the mortal state all things lose energy and eventually desintegrate
I don't know how to respond to this metaphor because that's not what the law of Conservation of Energy is. It states that energy can be converted from one form to another but it can not be destroyed.
quote: The fact is, we do have control over being here. Every one of us agreed to the Plan prior to coming here. I can break it down even further: You wanted a body. But, you had to come here and prove yourself worthy of having it.
Thank you scottneb, I'd forgotten about that part. That does make it consistant.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
According to Genesis, all the racial lines currently living on earth are descended from the three sons of Noah--Japheth, Ham, and Shem. Caucausions are usually understood to be the sons of Japheth--thus putting Europeans in the same category as Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians. Negroids are usually understood to be Hamitic--descended from Ham. The Semitic peoples, descended from Shem, are principally Jews and Arabs. Since Jesus was born a Jew, He was Semitic.
However, if this really made any diffence, only Jewish males could be saved. But in fact, in taking Jewish heredity upon Himself, Christ in truth took took all humanity upon Himself, so that He could become the Second Adam (see 1 Corinthians 15:45) the federated Head of the entire human race.
Thus Paul made that famous declaration that at once elimates all racism and sexism and classism: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28; NIV} He then added in the next verse: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
So in Christ we are all Semetic, we are all children of Abraham, and of Shem, because we have been joined to Christ. Thus Paul hits it both ways. In one sense there are no racial distinctions in Christ. In another sense, we are all constituted Jews--the Israel of God, the promised people--in Christ.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
A few ideas on this topic-
First, from a metaphysical point of view, it seems clear that the reason for Christ' sacrifice was the need to balance two aspects of God's nature. If God is perfectly just he cannot be merciful, for mercy implies sidestepping consequence for the sake of reducing suffering. The converse is also true- if God is merciful then he is not completely just.
This must hold true regardless of whether God has external constraints or is merely internally consistent.
This leads to the next question- what does it mean to be just? Justice is inevitably tied to standards of behavior. If we believe that there are standards of behavior which hold true for all people in all circumstances (a belief which is necessary if one believes in perfect justice) then we may term these immutable laws "eternal laws". Justice, then, means the execution of eternal law. This leads to the next question- what are the eternal laws?
This is where the divergence seen in different Christian sects occurs. Most protestants would assert that eternal law is simply whatever God decides is right. From the Mormon perspective, there are fundamental truths outside of God and by which God is constrained. I hold to this perspective, and I further believe that God also gives to different people at different times a set of laws which, while not directly tied to eternal law help enable the people to live according to eternal laws. Jesus illustrated the possible existence of this type of law when he overturned or minimized the importance of many of the Jewish laws which, though given by divine decree, had been changed by the recipients so that the laws were decoupled from their purpose. So while these "meta-laws" are built, maintained and modified by God to fit the specific circumstances of the people they are given to, they are not the same as eternal laws and hence while transgressing these laws may carry temporal penalties they do not carry eternal penalties. Eternal laws, however, carry inescapable consequences which last eternally. The eternal laws are in fact built into the fabric of the universe and do not require enforcement any more than the law of gravity requires enforcement. Thus, from this viewpoint, each action carries with it a natural consequence which is inescapable.
This is all tied to my posts on KarlEd's thread at this point. Just as pain exists as a learning tool imposed by biology and not as a necessary indicator of divine displeasure, so all negative consequences are the direct result of poor choices that we make and actions we take.
However, there is one important caveat: we do not suffer due to the consequences of only our own choices, we also suffer due to the choices of others, and we also cause others to suffer for our choices. This is a function of the artificial society built up by humans. Because our society functions according to artificial and not eternal laws, people can cheat the system- for example, a man may be able to build a fortune by robbing and plundering others, and yet he may live to a ripe old age and die in his sleep while much better people than he suffer horribly. This a distortion of the purpose for pain, as I discussed in the other thread. If pain is meant to help us learn then when we cause pain to others we destroy the purpose for pain, for unnecessarily causing pain to others does not help them to learn.
When people die in this state then, each one goes out of this life with an unbalanced tally, as it were. Eternal law holds (in my formulation of it) that we all must feel the consequences of our actions, learn from those consequences and thus progress. But human society has been manipulated by us to help us escape the consequences of our actions, and to the degree that we are able to avoid consequences we retard our ability to learn and progress, and to the degree that we injure others we impede their progress as well.
Further, the ability to learn and progress and feel the consequence of our actions must somehow be linked to the possession of a physical body. Perhaps this, again as in the idea of the physical laws of the universe, is linked to the arena in which eternal laws (such as the law of gravity) hold sway. Whatever the reason, by the manipulation of society to escape consequences we have impeded our own progress and thus everyone of us is damned- we cannot progress for we have evaded consequence while we had bodies, and we continue to exist after death but we are disembodied and thus our ability to effect change (and presumably to feel the consequences of our actions) has been diminished.
The only way for things to be brought back into balance is for us to obtain our bodies again as well as to escape the artificial system we created in which we decoupled action and consequence. This is where Christ comes in.
According to Mormon scripture:
quote: And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.
And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.
So the resurrection is tied to the suffering of Christ. I don't think I have ever heard of any theory as to how Christ was able to effect the resurrection, and I won't speculate here. But I will speculate as to what role he fulfilled in the scheme I have outlined above. Christ fulfilled eternal law in that he did not manipulate the system to escape consequence. Indeed, since he did no wrong he had no need to fear the negative consequences that the rest of us do. For that reason he was not subjected to the damnation I mentioned- being disembodied with a negative balance sheet. However, he also suffered the consequences of the choices of others. Indeed, in the atonement he suffered all of the bad consequences anyone inflicted on anyone else, or even on themselves. How this could occur I have no idea, but if we take it as a given that he did, Christ was now in a unique position. As he was free from the condemnation of eternal law he could take his body back with no negative consequences awaiting in abeyance. Perhaps this is why he could resurrect. But to allow other men to resurrect the balance sheet had to be corrected. All men had broken eternal laws waiting to slam consequences down on them if they picked up physical bodies again. By taking upon himself the painful consequences of their poor choices, Christ could allow men to be resurrected. However, standing between mankind and their consequences left over from their sojourn on earth did not change the nature of the men for whom he suffered, and if allowed into groups again, mankind would undoubtedly revert to forming their artifcial communities which, in part, allow men to abuse one another and avoid consequences. Perhaps this is why mankind is divided up by God into the communities they choose to form- in Mormon doctrine there are at least four of these communities. One consists of those who reject Christ's sacrifice for them completely. One is made up of people who love to murder and lie and so on. One is made up of mediocre sorts and one is made up of the really good people. Each one of these divisions allows people to learn and progress to the degree which they are willing to accept- from those who don't learn at all to those who learned very little on earth to those who mostly figured things out. From that point forward there will be no more shielding between eternal law and consequences- death cannot hold the consequences in abeyance, for everyone is immortal, and the artifical contrivances of human culture cannot put it off indefinitely- in eternity all consequences must be felt eventually.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)