Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[consiglieri]

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

Dear Billy,

I know you have been hammered pretty hard on this issue, not least of all by me, but I want to take a breather here for a second. It may be that you genuinely do not see my point of view.

You say that you do not know why God chose that type of death (i.e., crucifixion).

Can you see that this is not the real question?

Can you see that the real question is why God chose any type of death at all?

Can you see that the real question is why God chose the most brutal and painful type of death imaginable?

Can you see that the real question is why God chose to inflict this brutal and painful death on his own Son?

All these questions seem to be insurmountable difficulties if you continue to maintain that God could have chosen to just forgive us upon our asking.

If God could have chosen otherwise, why did he choose to do it this way?

You keep saying you have answered the question, and then continue to post two passages from the Bible, which state that God loved the world enough to send his Son; and that nobody has greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends.

But would not a greater love be manifest simply upon forgiving a repentant sole without brutally sacrificing an innocent son?

And if it is not necessary to die in order to save somebody else, what would we say of one who laid down his life anyway?

Can you see that what made Jesus' self-sacrifice noble is that he had to do this in order to save mankind, and that there was no other way? Can you see that if there were another way, it becomes something else entirely? Something much less noble?

Can you imagine Jesus pleading to the Father in the garden of Gethesemane for the Father to remove this cup and not make Jesus go through this horrendous ordeal? Can you imagine Jesus begging that if there is another way for this to be accomplished, to please do it the other way? And can you imagine God in heaven, listening to Jesus' plea, and knowing full well that there is another way, ignoring Jesus in his hour of crisis and make him go through it anyway?

And if you can imagine that, can you at the same time imagine that God really loved his Son?

Can you see that what made Jesus' self-sacrifice necessary, and therefore noble, is because this is the way God decreed it must be done?

And can you see that this circles us back to the original question without ever answering it; the original question being WHY God chose to do it this way if another alternative was available?

There. That's the absolute best I can do to try to explain it to you. I hope this makes sense to you, and perhaps can lead you toward a response that actually grapples with this important issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

Dear Billy,

I know you have been hammered pretty hard on this issue, not least of all by me, but I want to take a breather here for a second. It may be that you genuinely do not see my point of view.

You say that you do not know why God chose that type of death (i.e., crucifixion).

Can you see that this is not the real question?

Can you see that the real question is why God chose any type of death at all?

Can you see that the real question is why God chose the most brutal and painful type of death imaginable?

Can you see that the real question is why God chose to inflict this brutal and painful death on his own Son?

All these questions seem to be insurmountable difficulties if you continue to maintain that God could have chosen to just forgive us upon our asking.

If God could have chosen otherwise, why did he choose to do it this way?

You keep saying you have answered the question, and then continue to post two passages from the Bible, which state that God loved the world enough to send his Son; and that nobody has greater love than one who lays down his life for his friends.

But would not a greater love be manifest simply upon forgiving a repentant sole without brutally sacrificing an innocent son?

And if it is not necessary to die in order to save somebody else, what would we say of one who laid down his life anyway?

Can you see that what made Jesus' self-sacrifice noble is that he had to do this in order to save mankind, and that there was no other way? Can you see that if there were another way, it becomes something else entirely? Something much less noble?

Can you imagine Jesus pleading to the Father in the garden of Gethesemane for the Father to remove this cup and not make Jesus go through this horrendous ordeal? Can you imagine Jesus begging that if there is another way for this to be accomplished, to please do it the other way? And can you imagine God in heaven, listening to Jesus' plea, and knowing full well that there is another way, ignoring Jesus in his hour of crisis and make him go through it anyway?

And if you can imagine that, can you at the same time imagine that God really loved his Son?

Can you see that what made Jesus' self-sacrifice necessary, and therefore noble, is because this is the way God decreed it must be done?

And can you see that this circles us back to the original question without ever answering it; the original question being WHY God chose to do it this way if another alternative was available?

There. That's the absolute best I can do to try to explain it to you. I hope this makes sense to you, and perhaps can lead you toward a response that actually grapples with this important issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I am pressed for time because I am getting ready to leave for work, but let me try to answer this for you again before I leave. First I can't answer for God so that is why I have tried to limit my answer to scripture, so what follows is my own opinion based as best I can on the scriptures.

As I said before it revolves around Justice and Love. He could of choose many options, but because of His character (not because of some external pre-existing laws) he choose the plan that he did.

1. God could of saved everyone without sending a redeemer. This would of been out of love for us, but would not of shown His Justice. A true just judge can't allow sin or a crime go unpunished.

2. God could of not saved anyone because everyone sins. This would be fair because we deserve punishment, and this option which would show God's justice but not his love for us.

3. As the third option it blends both Love and Justice together. God's justice is shown by punishing Christ as the substitute. And Love was shown by redeeming mankind despite them not deserving to be redeemed by their own merits. Also remember that Christ freely accepted to do this for us out of His love for us, not forced into it as you have suggested.

[jwhitlock]

I am pressed for time because I am getting ready to leave for work, but let me try to answer this for you again before I leave. First I can't answer for God so that is why I have tried to limit my answer to scripture, so what follows is my own opinion based as best I can on the scriptures.

As I said before it revolves around Justice and Love. He could of choose many options, but because of His character (not because of some external pre-existing laws) he choose the plan that he did.

1. God could of saved everyone without sending a redeemer. This would of been out of love for us, but would not of shown His Justice. A true just judge can't allow sin or a crime go unpunished.

2. God could of not saved anyone because everyone sins. This would be fair because we deserve punishment, and this option which would show God's justice but not his love for us.

3. As the third option it blends both Love and Justice together. God's justice is shown by punishing Christ as the substitute. And Love was shown by redeeming mankind despite them not deserving to be redeemed by their own merits. Also remember that Christ freely accepted to do this for us out of His love for us, not forced into it as you have suggested.

Aside from the theological problems with these statements, it sounds like Billy is admitting that God sacrificed Christ...

because He had to! It was the only option He had!

In other words, He is bound by certain laws and constraints!

Or, Billy, are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

[erichard]

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.

....

Hi Consiglieri,

You forgot to preface this with "Heresy Alert!"

Now, how do you reconcile this with Ether 3:

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

...

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Or even with brother Brigham's teachings:

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World.

-- L. John Nuttall Diary; BYU Special Collections; 10-13 February 1877.

Just wondering.

Richard

[consiglieri]

Heresy Alert!!!

I think Brigham Young was wrong and Ether is misunderstood, as it does not purport to address any prior incarnation of the Savior.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

Hi Consiglieri,

You forgot to preface this with "Heresy Alert!"

Now, how do you reconcile this with Ether 3:

Or even with brother Brigham's teachings:

Just wondering.

Richard

Also, Who says that just because BY taught that Jesus was Father Adams first created spirit child means that this is His first mortal experience?

Also, the scripture in Ether is interesting... as there is a difference in how He describes how he is appearing:

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

...

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Why does Christ include those two words? Why didn't He just say, "even as I appear unto the in the spirit." Or if it's not of consequence, why didn't He say, "will I appear unto my people to be in the flesh?" Some theorists believe those words to be key.

[cinepro]

1. God could [have] saved everyone without sending a redeemer. This would of been out of love for us, but would not of shown His Justice. A true just judge can't allow sin or a crime go unpunished.

2. God could [have] not saved anyone because everyone sins. This would be fair because we deserve punishment, and this option which would show God's justice but not his love for us.

3. As the third option it blends both Love and Justice together. God's justice is shown by punishing Christ as the substitute. And Love was shown by redeeming mankind despite them not deserving to be redeemed by their own merits. Also remember that Christ freely accepted to do this for us out of His love for us, not forced into it as you have suggested.

Obviously, we're deep into the realm of "faith-based" premises, because there isn't a way to even begin to objectively investigate the claims made by Christians regarding the "atonement". You either take their word for it, or you don't.

That being said, am I to understand these key points as being unarguable facets of an "atonement"?

- The atoner has to be sinless himself. Someone who has sinned can't atone for the sins of another.

- The atoner must be willing. A sinless person can't be forced to atone for someone else's sins.

- The atoner must have a physical body. Since apparently punishment for sin involves physical pain.

I wonder what other conditions must be met, or if there is any flexibility.

And ultimately, I wonder how God figured all this out to put it into motion. Does the Universal Law of Justice have an ability to converse with God to explain the legalistic details necessary for people to be excused from their sins? Does he have a body, or is he just an essence or nebulous cloud?

And what if the communication between God and the Universal Law of Justice is an imperfect link, like the link between God and human prophets? Could God have misunderstood certain aspects of the atonement and be perfectly implementing an imperfect plan?

[Jason]

That being said, am I to understand these key points as being unarguable facets of an "atonement"?

- The atoner has to be sinless himself. Someone who has sinned can't atone for the sins of another.

- The atoner must be willing. A sinless person can't be forced to atone for someone else's sins.

- The atoner must have a physical body. Since apparently punishment for sin involves physical pain.

- The atoner must be divine.

This ties in with being sinless, since it takes someone with divine willpower to avoid all sin.

- The atoner must have the ability to resurrect himself after his death.

"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."

What it boils down to is that only Jesus could have fulfilled the requirements.

And ultimately, I wonder how God figured all this out to put it into motion. Does the Universal Law of Justice have an ability to converse with God to explain the legalistic details necessary for people to be excused from their sins? Does he have a body, or is he just an essence or nebulous cloud?

Do scientists have to talk to the universe to discern the laws of physics?

[erichard]

...I think Brigham Young was wrong and Ether is misunderstood, as it does not purport to address any prior incarnation of the Savior.

All the Best! --Consiglieri

OK. Then you believe that in his previous mortal estate Jesus was not the Savior?

I believe that Pres. Young was incorrect in teaching that Michael was the physical father of Jesus. So it seems we agree that Conference discourses by the church President are simply not guaranteed to always be correct.

I still believe the 2BC doctrine: we are of the seed of Michael and we can become Michaels and Adams on future worlds and gain exaltation, but we are not of the lineage of Jehovah-- and none of the lineage of Michael will ever be Saviors of worlds. Jesus was the Only Begotten of the lineage of Jehovah on this earth. I also believe that women can gain exaltation with their husbands, but they will never become men.

If the 2BC is not true Word of the Lord revelation, then who does have that gift today? No one? "We believe ...that He will yet reveal MANY great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

Consiglieri, may God continue to bless your efforts to find truth. And all of us.

Richard

[Calm]

- The atoner must be divine.

This ties in with being sinless, since it takes someone with divine willpower to avoid all sin.

- The atoner must have the ability to resurrect himself after his death.

"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."

What it boils down to is that only Jesus could have fulfilled the requirements.

I look upon Christ as a catalyst in the sense that the Atonement allows us access to a higher level of spiritual and some sort of physical 'energy' than we would be able to access on our own, thus allowing our spirits and bodies to undergo some sort of fundamental change creating no only immortality, but exalted beings. He had to go through the process of death and resurrection first in order to either change himself into this 'catalyst' or more likely in my view, alter the parameters of the process by his passage through it. (Obviously this is most likely a metaphor and we lack appropriate labels for these unknown and unmeasurable at this time forces/matter of what we call the possible interplay between the spiritual and physical realms.)

I see this ability to be a result of whatever quality that made him Diety before birth (unlike consig, I believe diety is a quality that can be achieved without a mortal body, it's just much, much harder and has to be done by someone with special/divine attributes...a divinity that was likely eternally within Christ (and I see it as an eternal quality of the Father as well and the Holy Ghost). Thus Christ has always been God (and only someone who is God prior to his own death---and possibly birth as Christ's life may have had some effect on how we can access the Spirit as in the Gift of the Holy Ghost---would be able to fulfill the requirements).

OTOH, mankind in general has to have help to become gods, that aspect of the divine which is in them is either dormant/latent/insufficiently powerful to supply the needed 'energy' or it is something that must be given/grafted in, which the Atonement plus the gift from the Father of exaltation accomplished.

------

I am not sure I am understanding the debate about "endurance" but here are my thoughts.

As far as endurance, there is more than just pure survival of the physical body. I do not see someone in a coma or even in a deep mental depression or someone who has protested and attempted to remove himself from the situation yet failed to do so as having endured an experience in the way I would say "he's endured" of someone who is still functioning as well or even better after the experience as before and while may have had doubts and at times lapsed in commitment, never attempted to 'exit the building'. Endurance to the end seems to scripturally require a relatively constant state of commitment and choice all the way through the process.

When it comes to enduring suffering in the next life when death is supposedly not in the equation anymore, I think endurance is a matter of maintaining control over oneself. Paying for one's sins is not about punishment, imo, but is a process of change of the self from nonglorified state to a glorified one and if one loses control (perhaps because of fear or apathy or belief it is unjust) than it seems to me the process cannot be completed, though partial success may be accomplished and this may be one reason why people end up in different kingdoms. An analogy would be the washing of one's clothes after one has rolled around in the mud where one is not allowed to come join the rest of the grownups until cleaned up. "Enduring" the payment means working at the cleaning until it is done. Perhaps getting the mud out is sufficient to join the party, but being able to participate in some of the more interesting aspects requires a sharper appearance, not only is the person clean, but clothes are ironed or look like new. Just because one isn't going to die from washing clothes doesn't mean those clothes are going to get clean given enough time. The individual needs to apply some effort or he'll be stuck in the laundry room for eternity. IOW, payment for one's sins requires the willing participation of the individual, it can't be done to him so it's just not a matter of coming through the torture alive (and I think the assumption that it's torture in the traditional sense is faulty).

On another comment, paying for our sins only zeros out the account it would seem to me. After that, we would be judge upon our works. Our works being finite, how can they qualify for us for an eternal reward? And even if we are given an eternal amount of time to qualify, if we lack the divinity to raise our works to a godly level then again, we never qualify for eternal life that God is willing to gift to us if we accept it.

I think we make a great error thinking about the resurrection, judgment, salvation and exaltation as if we are working with a bank account and not only our acts, but God and Christ's can be measured and thus compared to our own sins/works (our personal suffering being a fraction of his, our personal achievement....etc) and it's all the same 'coin'. I think it is less about measuring (at least once we step into the realm of the Atonement) and more about the very process/quality of self being changed. If we don't change, no matter how many 'works' we have added to our account, it can only get us the same in return. It cannot give us access to something of an entirely different nature. An analogy would be attempting to pay money to increase one's intellect, you can do so much with education, but it's not going to affect your IQ all that much...OTOH if a way was discovered where we could transplant cloned genius level brain cells into our brains, this might actually have an effect on our IQ.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I replied

Then you replied

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?

God hates the world...but he sent his son to save it. You are reading too much into the word hate...as JS understands that as well as the rest of us do also, then you need to keep the comment (or scripture) in the proper context of the entire Bible, and the history behind the story. In some places "God so loved the world" in other he hates it; this is why context is so important.

BTW, the entire message of the Gospel is that God loves us all, so he sent his son.

[Jason]

I believe that Pres. Young was incorrect in teaching that Michael was the physical father of Jesus. So it seems we agree that Conference discourses by the church President are simply not guaranteed to always be correct.

I don't think President Young ever actually taught this.

The explanation that "Adam" is another title of God, and that if he ever said Adam fathered Jesus then he meant God the Father (or "Adam Sr.") seems reasonable.

[consiglieri]

OK. Then you believe that in his previous mortal estate Jesus was not the Savior?

Correcto mundo, mi amigo.

Jesus was not the Savior in his previous mortal estate. (I should hope that he wouldn't have to go through that twice!)

Elohim was Jesus' Savior then, just as Jesus is our Savior now.

And with the mutual understanding that my musings may have about as much basis as Watson's "Two-Adam Theory," I perceive things such that the path of godhood includes all of us being first an Adam, then a Jehovah, and ultimately an Elohim.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Calm]

In what way can women fulfill a "Jehovah" role?

I think there is a significant problem with your theory unless you believe that godhood for women is significantly different than godhood for men or not possible at all and women end up being an eternal appendage to their God husbands, relevant perhaps in creation, but not in what makes God significant to his creatures--the Atonement process.

[consiglieri]

In what way can women fulfill a "Jehovah" role?

Uhmm, Mrs. Jehovah?

[Calm]

Uhmm, Mrs. Jehovah?

You're going to have to explain how the "Mrs." fulfills a saviour role for all of mankind under her supposed dominion in an comparable way to what her husband does.

I take it you also see numbers of those who fulfill the role up to Eloheim to be rather small in comparison to total numbers of Godkind (so to speak)...I am trying to get my head around the numbers that would be involved if even 1% of those who have lived on earth went on to be Christs on other worlds where 1% there also went on to be Christs on other worlds where 1%.....gets a bit unwieldy to say the least. Does the Christ of a world only atone for those who live on that world or is his atonement infinite for the universe that he exists in?

And last, what are the roles of those faithful who do everything except fulfill the Jehovah and Eloheim roles, are they exalted and joined in celestial marriage with their mate (but without eternal progeny) or something else?

[mnn727]

The debtor is God, the Mediator is Jesus, and we are the people in prison.

The Debtor was NOT God

debt

[Bernard Gui]

The lender is God the Father.

The contract is our agreement to come to earth.

We understood the contract before we came and agreed to it.

We became debtors when we came to earth.

The Law of Moses is justice.

Under the Law we cannot repay the full debt.

Jesus is the friend of the lender.

Through his atonement mercy was granted to all

who accept his conditions.

Those who accept his conditions (see the sacrament prayer)

come under his protection, and mercy satisfies justice, the

debt is paid.

Bernard

[cinepro]

- The atoner must be divine.

This ties in with being sinless, since it takes someone with divine willpower to avoid all sin.

- The atoner must have the ability to resurrect himself after his death.

"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."

Is the resurrection really part of the atonement? Could there be a resurrection without an atonement?

Do scientists have to talk to the universe to discern the laws of physics?

I thought about that. Are you suggesting God may have figured out the atonement through the scientific method? Have there been other planets on which a savior was tried, but it didn't work, and we will only know if our Savior got it right when the experiment is concluded?

[Jason]

Is the resurrection really part of the atonement?

Yes.

Could there be a resurrection without an atonement?

No.

Alma 11:42 "Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death."

Alma 40:2-3 "Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrectionâ??or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruptionâ??until after the coming of Christ.

3 Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead..."

I thought about that. Are you suggesting God may have figured out the atonement through the scientific method? Have there been other planets on which a savior was tried, but it didn't work, and we will only know if our Savior got it right when the experiment is concluded?

I don't think there was any experimentation of that sort involved, but I think that God did determine what the universal laws were and what would be required to elevate other beings to his status, and that the atonement was one of the things required.

[consiglieri]

The Debtor was NOT God

Ruh, Roh, Raggy.

I meant "creditor."

Sorry about that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Learning challenged")

[consiglieri]

You're going to have to explain how the "Mrs." fulfills a saviour role for all of mankind under her supposed dominion in an comparable way to what her husband does.

You mean other than providing moral support, taking care of the kiddies and doing lots of laundry?

I would be more than happy to provide details about the womenfolk, but am not able to do so. As far out as my ideas are, they are at least tangentially based upon the scriptures and revelations and, unfortunately, they tell us very little about the role of women in the eternities.

Hence, I am similarly constrained in being able to postulate regarding the activities of women in the hereafter.

And actually, I am the one who sees all those who are exalted from this earth going on to become Adams, then Jehovahs and ultimately Elohims; so there would be a large percentage rather than a small.

Although it may seem "unwieldy," it does account for the gods above Elohim, as well as providing a place for all his exalted brothers and sisters.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

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.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consiglieri,

This is an interesting thought. It does appear to conflict with the doctrine of resurrection at least as I understand it. Alma 11:45 reads:

"Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption. "

(bold added by me)

Resurrection happens to everyone who has every lived. And according to Amulek once resurrected we cannot die again death being defined as the separation of the body from the spirit (i.e. see James 2:26). If the plan of salvation is eternal and unchanging then if Christ lived as a mortal on another world he would have been resurrected once resurrected he could not die again at least according to Alma 11:45. This presents real problems with the idea of Christ being born to Mary. What happened to his old resurrected body? If Christs spirit left it behind to be born to Mary according to the definition of death (i.e. separation of body from spirit) then Christ would have had to die which is contrary to Alma 11:45. If we disregard this problem we still have the issue of Christ having two resurrected bodies his original and the one he got being born to Mary. Which resurrected body does his spirit inhabit? Both? I am open to the idea you have presented and I myself am not sure scripture should be regarded as reliable concerning information about the afterlife. But if I understand the doctrine of resurrection correctly it does present real problems with your thesis as formulated.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[consiglieri]

Hi, Uncertain!

The passage you quote from Alma is pretty much always brought up in opposition to multiple incarnations. I don't have as much a problem with it, though.

First, I think it unlikely Alma was addressing the issue under consideration. On another front, there is considerable evidence that the Book of Mormon authors did not have as complete a plan of salvation revealed to them as in modern days (e.g., the three degrees of glory).

Finally, Alma is talking about never dying again. To me, this includes the idea of growing sick and passing away involuntarily. Once resurrected, the body and the spirit may not be separated against the resurrected person's will.

But what if an exalted person should want to separate their body from their spirit? What if it is desirable at some point to do so?

Are we then saying that God does not have the power to separate his body from his spirit if he wants to?

A good cross reference for Alma 11 is John 10:

John 10: 17-18

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 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.

Does Jesus have a power that God did not have?

I am suspicious of limiting the power of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

Hi, Uncertain!

The passage you quote from Alma is pretty much always brought up in opposition to multiple incarnations. I don't have as much a problem with it, though.

First, I think it unlikely Alma was addressing the issue under consideration. On another front, there is considerable evidence that the Book of Mormon authors did not have as complete a plan of salvation revealed to them as in modern days (e.g., the three degrees of glory).

Finally, Alma is talking about never dying again. To me, this includes the idea of growing sick and passing away involuntarily. Once resurrected, the body and the spirit may not be separated against the resurrected person's will.

But what if an exalted person should want to separate their body from their spirit? What if it is desirable at some point to do so?

Are we then saying that God does not have the power to separate his body from his spirit if he wants to?

Hi Consiglieri,

Always a please to read your thoughts.

Well according to the formulation of LDS theology outlined in this thread God is bound by eternal and unchanging laws. Therefore it is entirely possible God does not have the power to voluntarily die (i.e. separate his spirit from his body). Perhaps there is an eternal and unchanging law that forbids him from doing so. Similar to God having no choice but to sacrifice his son if he wanted to redeem mankind. Given that death is defined as the separation of the body from the spirit. And that Amulek clearly taught that once the spirit is reunited with the body in resurrection it can never be divided. There is clear scriptural support for the idea it is an eternal law that resurrected beings can never die even voluntarily. If we could die voluntarily does that mean in the afterlife there could be wholesale death of resurrected physical bodies? Or perhaps body switching two spirits swapping bodies?

In addition even if we suppose Amulek was incorrect and we can put on and off our physical bodies like a set of clothes. This still leaves unresolved the matter of Christs original resurrected body. Does he now have two resurrected bodies that he flips between as the situation demands. The unused body lying in some kind of stasis to be preserved until needed?

A good cross reference for Alma 11 is John 10:

Does Jesus have a power that God did not have?

I am suspicious of limiting the power of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I always viewed this scripture as referring to Christs death and resurrection. So yes Christ did have the power to put away his life and pick it up again. But this is referring to his mortal body not his resurrected immortal body. And yes if God had a mortal body he would certainly have the same power (i.e. die and resurrect). I would also add as stated above LDS theology expressly limits God such that he is obedient to eternal law. I see no reason given the explicit scriptural teaching in Alma 11:45 that limiting Christ such that he can't die is so problematic.

All the Best,

Uncertain