Mormonism and the United Firm

[wenglund]

Of course it does. Just compensation is a two way street.

Why would God demand Christ suffer beyond the price of justice if a quid quo pro redemption would have satisfied the law?

I don't know that God did, but assuming that he did, then clearly, it is because he desired that more than justice, or more than the law of just compensation, be satisfied. That it may have been requisite for Christ to suffer beyond the price of justice, doesn't mean that the price of justice wasn't satisfied, or that the law of just compensation was somehow violated. It simply means that through the atonement, more than just compensation was met.

That would be an act of abject cruelty. Unless it were necessary for some reason...

True. But, I don't see that this presummed necessity somehow violates justice or the law of just compensation. It doesn't. Rather, as previously intimated, it satisfies the law and then some. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

Of course it does. Just compensation is a two way street.

Why would God demand Christ suffer beyond the price of justice if a quid quo pro redemption would have satisfied the law? That would be an act of abject cruelty. Unless it were necessary for some reason...

I wonder, to whom did Jesus pay this supposed

[frankenstein]

Who claims they do?

I believe Jeff was the one who brought "diminishing returns" and its application in the LoC

I request that you provide a hypothetical process that will resolve the dilemma without using force or coercion of any sort. Simply claiming that there will be no greed does not address the question: how do you allocate limited resources among the unlimited clamor for those resources?

Lehi

greed, excess, glutony, will not have place in those living the LoC in United Orders. Much of the Gospel is about "sufficient" for ones needs.

[rockslider]

I always viewed it as

[mfbukowski]

God or man?

Well God IS man. It was Man doing it for man- by man came death, and by Man came life.

For me it is the transformational quality of having the God of the universe- he who is all good in every possible way- VOLUNTARILY die as a human- but not just a human death but an ignominious, tortured, criminal, human death which was an act of such total opposition and sacrifice- an act in a sense of such total good in the face of such total evil- that it somehow "reversed the polarity" of the evil of the fall and turned the negative positive

It made the yang into yin and the yin into yang- it infused so much light into the dark that it made the dark light- use whatever analogy you like- it is not that compensation was paid, but that Adam's transgression and the fall was REVERSED by the suffering and resurrection of the savior.

To me, the effect was transformational, not like compensation at all. It was the metaphorical "big bang" which turned the black hole into the universe when God said "Let there be light"

But I suppose that really does not make any sense to anyone but me.

Edit: added the word "voluntarily" and "sacrifice"

[mercyngrace]

I wonder, to whom did Jesus pay this supposed

[mfbukowski]

I always viewed it as

[David Bokovoy]

Can you receive PMs? I'd love your input on something.

I cleared my box for you.

Best,

--DB

[rockslider]

mag,

yes please on more input ... feeling ready for it of late.

[David Bokovoy]

Well God IS man. It was Man doing it for man- by man came death, and by Man came life.

For me it is the transformational quality of having the God of the universe- he who is all good in every possible way- VOLUNTARILY die as a human- but not just a human death but an ignominious, tortured, criminal, human death which was an act of such total opposition and sacrifice- an act in a sense of such total good in the face of such total evil- that it somehow "reversed the polarity" of the evil of the fall and turned the negative positive

It made the yang into yin and the yin into yang- it infused so much light into the dark that it made the dark light- use whatever analogy you like- it is not that compensation was paid, but that Adam's transgression and the fall was REVERSED by the suffering and resurrection of the savior.

To me, the effect was transformational, not like compensation at all. It was the metaphorical "big bang" which turned the black hole into the universe when God said "Let there be light"

But I suppose that really does not make any sense to anyone but me.

Edit: added the word "voluntarily" and "sacrifice"

Thanks, I always enjoy reading what you have to offer. It's interesting, but in every discourse in the BofM discussing the demands of justice, three specific demands occur for the non-repentent soul:

1. Guilt

2. Subject to Satan

3. Cut off from the presence of God.

Some one or some thing in the universe presents these demands. I tend not to believe that it is God himself. True, God is a man; but man is not God.

Best,

--DB

[mfbukowski]

I think those demands are placed on the individual himself to in a sense qualify for the atonement through humility- and the admission of guilt- ie: broken heart and contrite spirit satisfies the guilt and being cut off from God and by removing those two, one then becomes less subject to satan- since Satan tempts by pride- the opposite of that is humility and the contrite spirit.

So the demand is on the individual to satisfy the requirements of humility on his own.

[Calm]

I wonder, to whom did Jesus pay this supposed

[David Bokovoy]

I think that is one of the great problems with thinking of the Atonement in terms of currency and debt repayment.

If one thinks of it in terms of healing or energy balance where sins sickens our spirits, etc. (Justice or another way of saying "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and the act of Atonement somehow heals us (Mercy, something which is able to satisfy the law of action/reaction) and not only restores us to what we were in our 'pure' forms but then perfects (completes us or fulfills all potential and then some), I find it easier to fit to my concept of God as a Loving Father and the Universe as a sensible place (since I view anything associated with business as inherently irrational ).

I completely agree! And have really appreciated your contributions to this thread.

[Calm]

Thanks, I always enjoy reading what you have to offer. It's interesting, but in every discourse in the BofM discussing the demands of justice, three specific demands occur for the non-repentent soul:

1. Guilt

2. Subject to Satan

3. Cut off from the presence of God.

Some one or some thing in the universe presents these demands. I tend not to believe that it is God himself. True, God is a man; but man is not God.

Best,

--DB

If it is our spirits that are made unfit by our actions, then a natural reaction of our spirits would be to experience guilt. We would also be cut off from the presence of God by not having 'healthy' spirits enough to endure his presence and thus this would leave us in our weakened spiritual state subject to Satan. It does not require some law making a pronouncement of sentence upon the guilty soul, but rather is simply a natural outcome of a sinful state much like when our physical bodies sicken and leave us unfit to accomplish things we could do when healthy and we experience emotional pain due to this loss of ability plus our weakened immune systems open us up to destructive physical influences.

[David Bokovoy]

If it is our spirits that are made unfit by our actions, then a natural reaction of our spirits would be to experience guilt. We would also be cut off from the presence of God by not having 'healthy' spirits enough to endure his presence and thus this would leave us in our weakened spiritual state subject to Satan. It does not require some law making a pronouncement of sentence upon the guilty soul, but rather is simply a natural outcome of a sinful state much like when our physical bodies sicken and leave us unfit to accomplish things we could do when healthy and we experience emotional pain due to this loss of ability plus our weakened immune systems open us up to destructive physical influences.

That's brilliant! These three points appear consistently in every discourse discussing the demands of justice, it's really quite amazing! I have never thought about the way these demands naturally fit together. Brilliant!

[wenglund]

Thanks, I always enjoy reading what you have to offer. It's interesting, but in every discourse in the BofM discussing the demands of justice, three specific demands occur for the non-repentent soul:

1. Guilt

2. Subject to Satan

3. Cut off from the presence of God.

Some one or some thing in the universe presents these demands. I tend not to believe that it is God himself. True, God is a man; but man is not God.

To me, it is the nature of the spiritual universe (which includes God and man as well as the elements of light and darkness), itself, that, in a sense, "presents the demands". If someone is raped and murdered, the demand for justice is presented not only by the person who is raped and murdered, but hopefully by the loved-ones of the victim, the community in which the victim lives, and certainly by God. And, these demands for justice are also presented by the "law", and this in the sense that the law establishes the right, and empowers (or at least formally recognizes the inherent power), of the plaintiff and fellow advocates to make the demand.

However, I believe it goes even more indepth than this. Given the opposing nature of the elements of light and dark, then with the increase of darkness brought on by sin, and the increase in attending "feelings" of remorse and sorrow and guilt, the tension brought on by the displacement of the elements of light, with their attending "feelings" of peace and joy and love, is a way of "presenting the demands" of justice. In this sense the very earth and dust cry out for the sins against and by its people. But, here, I may be venturing too far into the realm of esoteric philosophizing and speculations, or as some may call it, the "skinnies".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think that is one of the great problems with thinking of the Atonement in terms of currency and debt repayment.

If one thinks of it in terms of healing or energy balance where sins sickens our spirits, etc. (Justice or another way of saying "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) and the act of Atonement somehow heals us (Mercy, something which is able to satisfy the law of action/reaction) and not only restores us to what we were in our 'pure' forms but then perfects (completes us or fulfills all potential and then some), I find it easier to fit to my concept of God as a Loving Father and the Universe as a sensible place (since I view anything associated with business as inherently irrational ).

Wonderfully put. I tend to view it that way myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

That's brilliant! These three points appear consistently in every discourse discussing the demands of justice, it's really quite amazing! I have never thought about the way these demands naturally fit together. Brilliant!

My academic interests started out in physics, so at that time I looked on the atonement as some sort of energy exchange with Christ acting something like a catalyst (being the first to be resurrected, he somehow lowered the 'threshold' required perhaps), etc. Then I got into psychology and started thinking about how our mental and emotional states affect our physical and likely spiritual states so I started looking at the Atonement through the filter of how emotions and thoughts affect us, then health issues made it very clear how the physical impacts everything and I started drawing connections between spiritual and physical health.

I don't think the universal laws are based on business management or economic 'laws' which are so environmentally dependent, but I can see them operating on either the same sort of eternal laws that exist for the physical world (it makes sense to me that those laws extend into the spiritual 'dimensions' especially since JS defined spirit as "refined matter"). I tend to like to picture spiritual aspects much like material aspects of our world instead of something all that much different because it leads to simpler explanations and from what I've seen makes some nice, neat cause and effect connections between commandments, spiritual principles and their consequences and such. Such similarity makes sense to me since all these 'worlds' must overlap a great deal and the closer in resemblance they are, the smoother the overlap.

[rockslider]

Sure, make my chemical analogy look like child

[Calm]

Sure, make my chemical analogy look like child

[David Bokovoy]

I think we

[mfbukowski]

I think we

[wenglund]

...but theoretically both Knight and Young in these quoted instances would retain substantial control over the properties supposedly conveyed.

Thereby rendering the issue of "ownership" vs."stewartship" a relatively insubstantial semantic debate (as some of us have conceeded).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Thereby rendering the issue of "ownership" vs."stewartship" a relatively insubstantial semantic debate (as some of us have conceeded).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly. Obviously as long as there was good will on both sides for the term of the agreement there would be no problem. I would like a legal opinion - which I am theoretically not able to give- on how well the lease in question would hold up in court today. I have only been a real estate broker for 25 years, but am not an attorney. I would bet that if push came to shove and Knight, in a court today, argued that he was under duress, or didn't understand the implications of the transaction, it would be thrown out.

The Young transaction would probably be upheld, but again, depending on the terms of the trust, might not be of much practical consequence for his control of the property on a day to day basis. As the trustee of the trust, he could just even sign for the trust to convey the property to some one else if he wanted - just as if the president of a corporation deeded his house to the corporation- but he still controlled the corporation, so there would be little practical difference. Instead of acting as an individual, he would act as president of the corporation to do whatever he wanted to with the property.

But the bottom line as you say, is the good will element and what the intention of the parties.

But in today's litigious society, it would take some very well crafted contracts to make one's control of a leased property subject to a possibly arbitrary decision to excommunicate someone. I can imagine crooked bishops (which of course we know cannot possibly happen) having a field day taking over people's property on that basis.

[USU78]

I think we