Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

Why would God want to stop being God? I supposed he could, but I see no reason for Him to want to.

[Billy]

Billy:

Why would God want to stop being God? I supposed he could, but I see no reason for Him to want to.

I am not saying that at all. I was trying to point out that if God is truly God he can set up any system that he likes to redeem mankind. He could redeem anyone and everyone by his own criteria which was noted by another poster. This was the whole issue that consiglieri and I were discussing, he felt that God the Father was compelled to sacrifice Christ as his only real option to redeem mankind.

[consiglieri]

This was the whole issue that consiglieri and I were discussing, he felt that God the Father was compelled to sacrifice Christ as his only real option to redeem mankind.

And I would be remiss if I did not note that you have yet to provide a plausible explanation for why God the Father would not just forgive us without going through the apparently needless (and painful) process of sacrificing his own Son, except to argue that God literally loves his son to death.

Let's look at it this way.

You are in a court of law, charged with a crime and found guilty.

You stand before the judge and ask for forgiveness.

The judge says he will not forgive you, unless he kills his own son first.

The judge proceeds to kill his own son in front of you and then says, "Okay. Now, I forgive you."

How can you worship a God like that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi, Cinepro,

It is arguable that the scriptures teach just what you are proposing, in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus talks about agreeing with your brother in the way (to the courthouse), or else you could be thrown into (debtor's) prison; you shall not come out until you have paid the utmost farthing (senine in the Nephite account).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

cf. D&C 19.

[Billy]

No Billy, he can't. He cannot rob us of our free agency, he cannot force us to heaven, and he cannot hate us for we are his children.

Second, What God hated was the fact that Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Hate in this case would be better translated "disfavor". You know "Hate the sin, love the sinner".

I replied

The text does not say that God hated Esau because he sold his birthright. And hate is not better translated "disfavor", ask Joseph Smith in his JST. Also notice that it states that God elects not based on works.

JST

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Then you replied

Well, Billy, would it not stand to reason that the scripture should be taken into the context of the story of the OT...or do you think he is speaking of another "Jacob and Esau"?He does...then obey them.

I don't really understand your answer, can you clarify it for me Pa Pa? If God did not hate Esau, why didn't Joseph change this in his JST of the Bible?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe God hates Esau and you, Billy. Or maybe He hates me. How would I know?

[Brade]

Billy, I'm not always Mormonisms biggest fan but I can't help but notice an obvious pattern of completely ignoring the challenges offered to your own view.

And I would be remiss if I did not note that you have yet to provide a plausible explanation for why God the Father would not just forgive us without going through the apparently needless (and painful) process of sacrificing his own Son, except to argue that God literally loves his son to death.

[Jason]

I am not saying that at all. I was trying to point out that if God is truly God he can set up any system that he likes to redeem mankind. He could redeem anyone and everyone by his own criteria which was noted by another poster. This was the whole issue that consiglieri and I were discussing, he felt that God the Father was compelled to sacrifice Christ as his only real option to redeem mankind.

So in your view, why did He set up a system that required sacrificing his own Son?

[consiglieri]

Maybe God hates Esau and you, Billy.

You know, it was only on my most recent reading of the Book of Mormon that I saw God says the same thing about the Lamanites!

Hel. 15: 4--But behold my brethren, the Lamanites hath he (God) hated because their deeds have been evil continually, and this because of the iniquity of the tradition of their fathers. But behold, salvation hath come unto them through the preaching of the Nephites; and for this intent hath the Lord prolonged their days.

For what it's worth . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

Billy, I'm not always Mormonisms biggest fan but I can't help but notice an obvious pattern of completely ignoring the challenges offered to your own view.

You obviously have not read the thread

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.

[Billy]

And I would be remiss if I did not note that you have yet to provide a plausible explanation for why God the Father would not just forgive us without going through the apparently needless (and painful) process of sacrificing his own Son, except to argue that God literally loves his son to death.

Let's look at it this way.

You are in a court of law, charged with a crime and found guilty.

You stand before the judge and ask for forgiveness.

The judge says he will not forgive you, unless he kills his own son first.

The judge proceeds to kill his own son in front of you and then says, "Okay. Now, I forgive you."

How can you worship a God like that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In your example if a law is broken that requires a certain penalty, in order for justice to be met it requires that someone pays the penalty. Christ is this example pays the penalty for the one who committed the crime. Christ is paying the penalty for OUR sins. This is what the atonement of Christ is all about.

"Substitutionary atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology which states that Jesus of Nazareth died â?? intentionally and willingly â?? on the cross as a propitiation, or substitute, for sinners. This doctrine presents Jesus' death as a supreme act of love for mankind, in order to bring people into a relationship with God. It stresses the vicarious nature of the crucifixion as being "instead of us". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

I don't think that we are arguing over this point, rather we seem to be arguing over who set this system up, was it God the Father, or someone or something else. You think it is based on EXTERNAL LAWS that God the Father has to obey, I feel that God the Father set up this system based on his own doing.

[JDave]

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.

Why did God make justice so brutal? Why did God make justice at all?

[Billy]

Why did God make justice so brutal? Why did God make justice at all?

Why he choose that type of death, I don't know.

[jwhitlock]

Why he choose that type of death, I don't know.

Why didn't he pick another way - which he could, according to your theology - that didn't involve someone dying and yet accomplished the same thing?

[Billy]

Why didn't he pick another way - which he could, according to your theology - that didn't involve someone dying and yet accomplished the same thing?

Again I don't feel that this is so much a argument over why i.e. substitutionary atonement, but who set this whole thing up. By your statement you imply that God the Father HAD to crucify Christ by some sort of pre-set external laws. Did these external laws required that God the Father crucify Christ on a cross? Who made these rules?

According to LDS theology was God the Father crucified in this same brutal way on a cross during his lifetime on another world? Is this why you feel that Christ had to follow what he saw his father do?

[jwhitlock]

Again I don't feel that this is so much a argument over why i.e. substitutionary atonement, but who set this whole thing up. By your statement you imply that God the Father HAD to crucify Christ by some sort of pre-set external laws. Did these external laws required that God the Father crucify Christ on a cross? Who made these rules?

According to LDS theology was God the Father crucified in this same brutal way on a cross during his lifetime on another world? Is this why you feel that Christ had to follow what he saw his father do?

Billy, you keep tap dancing around the question, refusing to answer it.

Of course, the Bible tells us that we are to know God.

What kind of God does your theology imagine? How can a God be a God of love when He chooses to brutally sacrifice His Son, when - by your own theology - the same results for us could have been accomplished in a far less cruel manner, without death? How do you justify such a God?

[cinepro]

My view is that it needs to be accomplished before we are resurrected. We are resurrected with a body that may have certain limits. It seems that those consigned to outer darkness are incapable of returning to live with God.

I considered that, but then it would either have to be accomplished without a body (after we have died but before we are resurrected), or while we are mortal. Obviously, if we were mortal and it killed us, then we're back to square one.

Could it be that Jesus didn't go through the atonement so we wouldn't have to pay the price for our own since, but because there is no spiritual mechanism through which regular people could pay the price for their sins? The Universal Law of Justice just doesn't allow anyone who has sinned to make up for it; you're screwed any way you slice it.

That would then raise the question of why the Universal Law of Justice wouldn't allow people to pay for their own sins to overcome the consequences, but it is possible for another person to pay some sort of price for those same sins?!

[Billy]

Billy, you keep tap dancing around the question, refusing to answer it.

Of course, the Bible tells us that we are to know God.

What kind of God does your theology imagine? How can a God be a God of love when He chooses to brutally sacrifice His Son, when - by your own theology - the same results for us could have been accomplished in a far less cruel manner, without death? How do you justify such a God?

I have already answered that question, you must of missed it.

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 questions

By your statement you imply that God the Father HAD to crucify Christ by some sort of pre-set external laws. Did these external laws required that God the Father crucify Christ on a cross? Who made these rules?

According to LDS theology was God the Father crucified in this same brutal way on a cross during his lifetime on another world? Is this why you feel that Christ had to follow what he saw his father do?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting questions, cinepro.

[DH]

No parable or allegory is a perfect description of what actually happens. They provide hints, and illustrate certain aspects, but pushed too far, they will fall apart. You are right that Elder Packer's parable does not perfectly represent the Atonement, but then, nothing does, and this doesn't mean that the parable fails completely in its purpose.

DH

[jwhitlock]

I have already answered that question, you must of missed it.

Now answer my questions

Billy, your non-answer (as has been pointed out to you) does not qualify you to avoid the question and than try to ask questions designed to take the heat off of you.

Because of your non-answers, I can only assume that your theology subscribes to an arbitrary and cruel God - despite what the Bible says - who would rather allow cruel things to happen when other ways were available. Such is the inconsistency of the doctrine that God is above law, and is not subject to law.

It appears that other EVs recognize the problematic nature of that doctrine and address it accordingly. I'll leave you to your doctrine.

[Billy]

Billy, your non-answer (as has been pointed out to you) does not qualify you to avoid the question and than try to ask questions designed to take the heat off of you.

Because of your non-answers, I can only assume that your theology subscribes to an arbitrary and cruel God - despite what the Bible says - who would rather allow cruel things to happen when other ways were available. Such is the inconsistency of the doctrine that God is above law, and is not subject to law.

It appears that other EVs recognize the problematic nature of that doctrine and address it accordingly. I'll leave you to your doctrine.

I have answered the question on more than one occasion. You just do not like my answer. On the other hand you have completely avoided answering my questions. I don't blame you.

[jwhitlock]

I considered that, but then it would either have to be accomplished without a body (after we have died but before we are resurrected), or while we are mortal. Obviously, if we were mortal and it killed us, then we're back to square one.

Could it be that Jesus didn't go through the atonement so we wouldn't have to pay the price for our own since, but because there is no spiritual mechanism through which regular people could pay the price for their sins? The Universal Law of Justice just doesn't allow anyone who has sinned to make up for it; you're screwed any way you slice it.

That would then raise the question of why the Universal Law of Justice wouldn't allow people to pay for their own sins to overcome the consequences, but it is possible for another person to pay some sort of price for those same sins?!

You may actually be on to something. In LDS theology, those entering the telestial kingdom suffer for their own sins, but still can only enter that kingdom through the atoning power of Christ.

The thoughts in your second paragraph are, indeed, interesting.

[JDave]

I have answered the question on more than one occasion. You just do not like my answer. On the other hand you have completely avoided answering my questions. I don't blame you.

Billy there are two options

1. God, in order to save all of us, needed to sacrifice his Only Begotten and did so out of love.
   
2. God, because he wanted to, sacrificed his Only Begotten and did so out of love.
   

The questions as to WHY are not near as important as realizing that there is a reason you are asking WHY. The WHY is unnecessary without the underlying premise.

Moreover, the WHY for the first option seems not as urgent as the WHY for the second.

1. Why did God need to have a blood sacrifice his Only Begotten?
   
2. Why did God want to have a blood sacrifice his Only Begotten?
   

[JDave]

Could it be that Jesus didn't go through the atonement so we wouldn't have to pay the price for our own since, but because there is no spiritual mechanism through which regular people could pay the price for their sins? The Universal Law of Justice just doesn't allow anyone who has sinned to make up for it; you're screwed any way you slice it.

That would then raise the question of why the Universal Law of Justice wouldn't allow people to pay for their own sins to overcome the consequences, but it is possible for another person to pay some sort of price for those same sins?!

I have always viewed it this way. Why Scale works that way I don't know. I think it has something to do with changing our very natures as well. We don't have the ability to fully recover from the effects of sin. Christ not only pays for our sins, he changes our nature to counterract the effects of our sins.