Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[jwhitlock]

We are here to sin.

Good post and excellent thoughts.

I've always felt that one of the things we are eventually going to have to do - after this life - is to come face to face with the Savior and face to face with what we are and have done. The process of coming to grips with the awful effects of sinning, which we all do here as you have noted, is perhaps the only way to mold us in a particular way needed for our further progression.

Sin and agency is, somehow, a very necessary part of the process. It does not justify sin or make it ok, but it does help put it into a better context. Just like our trials are necessary, so is our sin and our redemption from that sin.

[JDave]

I suggest that we are not here to be perfect. Quite the opposite in fact.

We are here to sin.

Couldn't we sin just as easily without a mortal body?

Here is Alma talking about how some were called to priesthood positions because of their good works before the foundation of the world, yet receiving a "preparatory redemption". I think that the Atonement covers our mistakes before this life as well.

Alma 13:3
  3 And this is the manner after which they were ordainedâ??being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

I don't at all disagree that sin is necessary. I used to think sin was unnecessary, but I currently believe that it is a necessary part of our progression. But why was Jesus able to progress without it?

[consiglieri]

I don't at all disagree that sin is necessary. I used to think sin was unnecessary, but I currently believe that it is a necessary part of our progression. But why was Jesus able to progress without it?

You probably don't want to go there with me, as I am firmly of the belief that this was not Jesus' first go at mortality.

He was a God before the earth was created, and he became a God the same way everybody does.

There is only one path to godhood, and it lies straight through a mortal life full of sin and repentance.

As I say, examining this issue further would result in a greater derailment of the thread than that put up by Billy,

WHO, BY THE WAY IS STILL SHUCKING AND JIVING OVER THE BLOOD THIRSTY NATURE OF HIS GOD.

Quit trying to turn it back on us, Billy.

Just answer the question from your own framework of belief.

Do you, or do you not, believe in a God who could have just forgiven us our sins the same way he commands us to forgive others, but instead chose to make a completely unnecessary bloody sacrifice of his own Son?

(I can keep repeating the question as long as you keep avoiding it, you know.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

That Joseph Smith is NOT a prophet, seer, and revelator?It matters to me, because that means that my God is bigger than your God who is subject to someone else's rules and regulations.

A perfect chess player is a perfect chess player whether He invented chess or not, no? Not that I grant the God I worship is subject to "someone else's rules and regulations," I'm just making the logical connection here that it wouldn't seem to matter either way.

[LDSMusic483]

I don't at all disagree that sin is necessary. I used to think sin was unnecessary, but I currently believe that it is a necessary part of our progression. But why was Jesus able to progress without it?

It seems there are two ways to experience sin and learn from its effects. The way we do, and the way Christ did. Remember He took upon Himself the sins. He knows us perfectly including all of the effects of sin. That was in part a portion of His progression. He had to understand the depths to which we fall to succor us.

[Jason]

You probably don't want to go there with me, as I am firmly of the belief that this was not Jesus' first go at mortality.

He was a God before the earth was created, and he became a God the same way everybody does.

There is only one path to godhood, and it lies straight through a mortal life full of sin and repentance.

There is at least one path that does not involve a mortal life and resurrection with a glorified body. How else could the Holy Ghost have become a God?

[consiglieri]

There is at least one path that does not involve a mortal life and resurrection with a glorified body. How else could the Holy Ghost have become a God?

Ditto the Holy Ghost.

[JDave]

You probably don't want to go there with me, as I am firmly of the belief that this was not Jesus' first go at mortality.

Well, not in this thread at least.

While I am also interested in Billy's response, I am wondering what you think about the idea that we sinned before this life and the atonement covers that too. What is different about the sins in this mortal life that help us progress? Is it not just sin, but also the separation from God's presence?

[Billy]

WHO, BY THE WAY IS STILL SHUCKING AND JIVING OVER THE BLOOD THIRSTY NATURE OF HIS GOD.

--Consiglieri

God is God, he can choose to do what he pleases.

I answered your question, Now answer my question who is responsible for setting up the rules that requires Jesus to die? Who is the "bloodthirsty tyrant" for Jesus' death according to LDS theology? You are shucking and jiving aren't you?

Who made the rules and regulations that required the bloody sacrifice of Jesus? Doesn't the person who made the rules up that required the sacrifice of Jesus also qualify as what you say a "a bloodthirsty tyrant".

[consiglieri]

God is God, he can choose to do what he pleases.

I answered your question, Now answer my question who is responsible for setting up the rules that requires Jesus to die? Who is the "bloodthirsty tyrant" for Jesus' death according to LDS theology? You are shucking and jiving aren't you?

Actually, you have not answered my question.

The issue isn't whether you believe that God can do what he pleases.

The issue is whether you will follow that line of reasoning to its ineluctable conclusion.

Unless when you say that God can choose to do what he pleases, you are tacitly admitting that God is a bloodthirsty tyrant.

I just want you to come out and say it and stop being coy.

If you really believe it, you should be proud of it!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

Actually, you have not answered my question.

Actually I have answered your question. Are you incapable of answering my question? I understand you not wanting to answer my question, because it accuses one of your many Gods of the same thing while at the same time limiting the power of the LDS God (the Father) to just following some pre-existing set of rules.

The "blood thirsty tyrant" is YOUR characterization not mine or not God's characterization of Jesus' death.

John 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[cksalmon]

But Billy, you still haven't answered the question as to why God can't just forgive us himself?

Why all the sacrifice? Why all the blood and carnage? Why all the death and destruction?

Only Mormonism has the answer to this, you know.

You will find it nowhere in your evangelical canons and creeds.

Hi Consig--

What is the Mormon answer to the question, "Why can't God just forgive us himself [without the sacrifice of a perfect, singular mediator between God and man]?"

Best.

cks

[consiglieri]

Tantrums will avail you nothing.

You must really answer the question.

Do you believe that God sacrificed his only begotten Son because simply because he wanted to, and not because he had to?

A simple yes or no will do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

Actually I have answered your question. Are you incapable of answering my question? I understand you not wanting to answer my question, because it accuses one of your many Gods of the same thing while at the same time limiting the power of the LDS God (the Father) to just following some pre-existing set of rules.

The "blood thirsty tyrant" is YOUR characterization not mine or not God's characterization of Jesus' death.

John 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This is ridiculous...would one of you come out with your point?

[consiglieri]

Hi Consig--

What is the Mormon answer to the question, "Why can't God just forgive us himself [without the sacrifice of a perfect, singular mediator between God and man]?"

Best.

cks

Hi, CKS!

How are you doing? I will be happy to respond to your inquiry just as soon as I can get a straight answer out of Billy.

And this may take some time because it's like pulling hen's teeth, I'm telling you!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

Tantrums will avail you nothing.

You must really answer the question.

Do you believe that God sacrificed his only begotten Son because simply because he wanted to, and not because he had to?

A simple yes or no will do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I was too late...now I see consig's point...Billy?

[cksalmon]

...

Unless when you say that God can choose to do what he pleases, you are tacitly admitting that God is a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Hi Consig--

I say that God can choose to do what he pleases. More to the point, I say that God in fact inevitably always does what he pleases. I do not admit, however, either openly or tacitly, that God is a bloodthirsty tyrant. The provocative language doesn't cinch the case for me. I haven't read the whole thread, either, though. I'll have to go back and scan for this particular issue.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

Tantrums will avail you nothing.

You must really answer the question.

Do you believe that God sacrificed his only begotten Son because simply because he wanted to, and not because he had to?

A simple yes or no will do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Okay. I think I'm sussing things a bit better now.

The simple answer is "no," though the "had to" (which I affirm) is problematic if left unnuanced.

Best.

cks

[Billy]

I will be happy to respond to your inquiry just as soon as I can get a straight answer out of Billy.

Here is your original question

But Billy, you still haven't answered the question as to why God can't just forgive us himself?

Why all the sacrifice? Why all the blood and carnage? Why all the death and destruction?

I responded twice to your question

God can do anything he pleases.

God is God, he can choose to do what he pleases.

I also provided my opinion as a possible reason for Christ's sacrifice.

I think it is a balance between justice and mercy. If he left sin unpunished there would be no justice. So by giving his life for us he satisfies justice and at the same time shows his love for us.

I already answered your question, but I will answer it again for the third time. YES I think that God could just forgive us when we say we are sorry IF he chose to do so. That is obviously not what he choose to do, for reasons that I do not know, but a possible reason was given above namely justice verses mercy. And as I said before the "blood thirsty tyrant" characterization is YOUR characterization of God not mine. How does the Bible describe Jesus' sacrifice?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Now answer my question. Who made the rules that required Jesus to be sacrificed? And didn't Elohim have ANY power to overrule this sacrifice? This type of sacrifice has been done over and over again in other worlds, isn't this correct?

[groove]

Maybe I am missing something here, but where do you read that the laws are eternal, and that God is subject to these rules? And who made up these eternal laws or rules?

Nobody made them. They just are. Virtually every systematic Christian theology acknowledges that any rational notion of God subjects him to "external" laws and structure which he arguably did not create. For example, most would agree that God is subject to the laws of logic such that he cannot create a square with three sides or create a being which is more powerful than himself or a rock so big that he cannot lift it. Part of how we define God is that he is subject to certain rational constraints, otherwise, we have no basis for even speaking about God. Given the fact that we already accept these sorts of constraints is it really too tremendously tough to imagine that base elements like justice , mercy, and love might be just as intrinsic to the definition of God?

[cinepro]

Here's a question I've also thought about:

We believe that our post-mortal spirits will have the same personalities, tendencies and desires that we do on this Earth. It is well established that no matter how good we are, everyone continues to sin, even after they find the gospel and receive the Holy Ghost. Some may sin less than others, and few may live a pretty-darn-close to perfect life (I would imagine President Monson has had most his rough edges worn off him), but all of us will be imperfect until the day we die as a matter of course.

So then our imperfect spirits continue on, and get reunited with our bodies in the resurrection. Then we get judged, and receive our reward.

At what point do our spirits stop wanting to steal the candy bar, or get rich quick, or eat meat unsparingly etc.? When do we become perfect, and what is the actual change that makes our spirits stop wanting to sin? Does God reach into my heart and just remove the desire I have to type on message boards instead of spending time with my kids?

[Billy]

Billy states,

Maybe I am missing something here, but where do you read that the laws are eternal, and that God is subject to these rules? And who made up these eternal laws or rules?

groove responds,

Nobody made them. They just are. Virtually every systematic Christian theology acknowledges that any rational notion of God subjects him to "external" laws and structure which he arguably did not create.

Can you give me some examples of this, that show that God is subject to external laws that he did not create?

[Cold Steel]

Then Jesus comes and offers to buy our way out of jail. Great! But what is the condition? That we have to keep all the commandments of God. The problem should be obvious.

I see no problem unless you want to get very technical. Keep in mind that even the allegory of the olive tree has some problems that are excusable in making the point.

The offer Christ makes is good. Once we're freed, however, we're expected to "sin no more lest something worse overtakes thee." If we don't keep our part of the agreement (our covenants), then the mob may find us and whack us. This happens if the person in the Witness Protection Plan doesn't do as he's told. Or we might get on drugs or booze and end up on skid row. Getting out of jail is only one part of our lives. God provides the way to happiness and eternal life. He also provides us a way out of jail, because, as sinners, we would reap the price of sin unless Jesus paid for it. But the mansion isn't ours if we don't do as we agreed.

Or did I miss something?

[cinepro]

I see no problem unless you want to get very technical. Keep in mind that even the allegory of the olive tree has some problems that are excusable in making the point.

The offer Christ makes is good. Once we're freed, however, we're expected to "sin no more lest something worse overtakes thee." If we don't keep our part of the agreement (our covenants), then the mob may find us and whack us. This happens if the person in the Witness Protection Plan doesn't do as he's told. Or we might get on drugs or booze and end up on skid row. Getting out of jail is only one part of our lives. God provides the way to happiness and eternal life. He also provides us a way out of jail, because, as sinners, we would reap the price of sin unless Jesus paid for it. But the mansion isn't ours if we don't do as we agreed.

Or did I miss something?

Is there also the non-Christ option to pay for our own sins? Let's say there will be 25 billion total spirits alive in the history of the world. Assuming I have a less-than-average degree of sin for my lifetime, my punishment would be about 1/25 billionth of what Christ suffered in Gethsemane. Does that mean that in my immortal state, I would have to feel the pain Christ did for 1/25 billionth as long as he did to pay for my sins?

I guess there isn't another option, and it's either Christ's way or the highway, but it's still something to think about.

[cksalmon]

I see no problem unless you want to get very technical. Keep in mind that even the allegory of the olive tree has some problems that are excusable in making the point.

The offer Christ makes is good. Once we're freed, however, we're expected to "sin no more lest something worse overtakes thee." If we don't keep our part of the agreement (our covenants), then the mob may find us and whack us. This happens if the person in the Witness Protection Plan doesn't do as he's told. Or we might get on drugs or booze and end up on skid row. Getting out of jail is only one part of our lives. God provides the way to happiness and eternal life. He also provides us a way out of jail, because, as sinners, we would reap the price of sin unless Jesus paid for it. But the mansion isn't ours if we don't do as we agreed.

Or did I miss something?

Yes, I do believe you missed something, Cold Steel. Your response indicates that you view your ultimate salvation as being dependent, in some measure, upon your own merit. What Christ truly gives to his chosen people is redemption from the curse of the law. He does not give a pass for licentiousness, mind you, but true freedom from slavery to the law. Since the law will forever and always condemn all men, Christ is the only answer to its condemnation. "Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies..." Not us. Not even partially.

The invitation of Christ is to trust fully and completely in his merit and to throw off the shackles of the law in order to become slaves to Christ and his righteousness. And to enter into true freedom absent the curse of the law.

If you miss this, frankly, you miss the Good News.

cks