Jump to content

JLHPROF

Contributor
  • Content Count

    14,439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9,989 Excellent

4 Followers

About JLHPROF

  • Rank
    Gazing into the eternities

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Happy Valley (by way of the UK and Canada).

Recent Profile Visitors

7,449 profile views
  1. Because the doctrine was perverted in its application doesn't make it false. All do not enter mortality on the same spiritual footing, scripture is clear on that. The racial misapplication doesn't falsify the doctrine. All men are not created equal.
  2. This is not the first time I've heard this theory. Some have suggested that the expression actually used "third part" implies three groupings, not a precise 1 out of 3. Perhaps the three groups you describe clarifies this.
  3. I agree. The argument is usually made that contradictions came from opinion, not revelation. But at the same time there are previous non-canonical revelations that are no longer considered to be from God. This creates dangerous precedent since the next prophet can always claim revelation to undo a previous prophet (much like Presidents and executive orders). Despite the prophet Joseph teaching that new revelation contradicting previous revelation should be considered false. It's also important to recognize a difference between mistakes in decisions and mistakes in revelations.
  4. Scripture. Like the one provided that Cain was perdition premortally yet somehow wasn't cast out.
  5. You really aren't big on compartmentalizing are you. But I actually agree with what you are saying here. Nothing in the gospel exists in a vacuum. Just like the atonement is both Gethsemane and Calvary and beyond.
  6. So that would lean to natural law, cause and effect. Our actions create the need for a necessary penalty as a natural consequence. Like burning ourselves when we touch a hot surface. The penalty is owed automatically, not applied. Nothing other than the built in effect of the sin causing a penalty to be administered.
  7. I like all this. But again, my question from the OP is to whom is the bolded part owed? Who or what is that penalty owed to? Owing it to "justice" is a vague term. Owing it to God makes it subject to his will only. But something has to exist that demands that penalty. Is it a law of nature - a natural consequence if you will? Cause and effect?
  8. Apparently the current prophet is ok with tattoos now. This has been making the rounds online...
  9. Yeah, I heard that tithing is the new indulgences. 😄
  10. In principle, yes. I know the line between the two is vague (adultery for instance). But yes, I am specifically looking at sin. Christ had to pay for our sins. Justice cannot be robbed. Who or what is this justice that has to be paid? What would happen if it wasn't paid (we'd remain in the grave, but why and how)? There are those who treat sin like the only reason it's bad is because it offends God, as if should God choose to forgive a sin the penalty wouldn't matter. Which we know to be false because the atonement exists. The penalty is not there just because God doesn't li
  11. A few of the responses are focusing on the person that broke the law, ie repentance, accountability, restitution, etc. That's not really what I'm getting at. If I were to mug somebody and get arrested "justice" would demand a criminal penalty. It might include restitution, reform of my character, and paying the price through incarceration. But in a criminal act the price is paid by the criminal "to society" and sometimes "to the court" or "to the victim". But if I commit a sin that needs to be paid for does the same kind of guideline apply? Let's say I break the sabbath and ref
  12. As long as there are hourly workers without paid sick time people will continue to tough it out and even lie about how sick they are. For many missed work isn't an option regardless of community pressure.
  13. The atonement thread got me thinking and here is a related topic I'd like some thoughts on. When you read of mercy not robbing justice, or God being a follower of law, or Christ paying the price for our sins and Adam's transgression, what does that mean to you? When a law is broken and "justice" needs satisfaction what do you think justice represents? Is it an offended Heavenly Father? Or the eternal laws he maintains in his dominions? Or the rules of those to whom he reports? Or community laws for the Celestial Kingdom we hope to enter? Or is it even natural law, a required
  14. The need for separating the atonement into two parts is fascinating. We speak of the atonement singly, the human need to break it down into component parts seems needless. The Savior's atoning act began in Gethsemane and ended at Calvary. Both the taking of sin and the paying of the price are equally important. Neither is more important. What's important is the infinite effects throughout all of the world in all ages.
  15. You can choose to mock rather than addressing the questions raised if you like. But when speaking of doctrine and revelation truth is eternal. If we accept every change because the current prophet says so we really have little testimony in any gospel principles except for the one that says follow the living prophet. Which you can do without agreeing with every doctrinal opinion of the current day.
×
×
  • Create New...