frankenstein Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Rob, I would say the weakness is in members not doing simple "research" on the subject, as I stated they need only read basic Church materials.
Hughes Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You need to read what I actually wrote.I don't see how you could possibly get that idea from my post.Just keep telling yourself that. And keep being critical about the theology of others, BUT under NO CIRCUMSTANCES look at your own theology critically.Don't consider that Evangelical theology dictates that the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God. Since you believe that Jesus is your one God, he is incapable of being eternally separated from himself. He therefore not only did NOT suffer the punishment for your sins, He is INCAPABLE of doing so.I see this as a GIANT hole in your theology. So you be sure to keep your mind closed regarding it. You wouldn't want to honestly consider the implications of it, that might cause some discomfort for you.Seems you said that he's not capable of suffering the punishment for our sins. I'm asking you if that means you think he's not our savior. Instead of telling me to read it again, please explain what you mean.
Vance Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Seems you said that he's (the Evangelical/trinitarian Jesus) not capable of suffering the (Evangelical defined) punishment for our sins. That is exactly what I am saying. I'm asking you if that means you think he's not our savior. I wasn't talking about my beliefs, but yours. Instead of telling me to read it again, please explain what you mean.What part of " . . . Evangelical theology dictates . . . Since you believe that . . . " is in any way connected with what I believe?I don't believe in Evangelical theology. I see too many giant holes in it for me to accept it.
Hughes Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 That is exactly what I am saying.I wasn't talking about my beliefs, but yours.What part of " . . . Evangelical theology dictates . . . Since you believe that . . . " is in any way connected with what I believe?I don't believe in Evangelical theology. I see too many giant holes in it for me to accept it.Oh, thanks. I see. No, since you mischaracterized the Evangelical position your "giant hole" doesn't exist. Thanks.
Rob Osborn Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Rob, I would say the weakness is in members not doing simple "research" on the subject, as I stated they need only read basic Church materials.Reading the basic church materials leaves one in doubt. that is my point.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I second the other posters who feel that see a weak spot in the dead children under eight are automatically exalted doctrine.For starters, this would mean that the vast majority of people in the celestial kingdom are these children. Think about the mortality rate of children over the last 6000 years (or longer if you don't believe in a young earth and/or literal Adam) and it's not hard to see that there were billions of them. On the other hand, members who lived and died faithful probably number somewhere in the tens of millions (including faithful people in the Bible and BOM).Joseph Smith expanded this doctrine in the King Follet discourse when he said: A question may be asked
Rob Osborn Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I second the other posters who feel that see a weak spot in the dead children under eight are automatically exalted doctrine.For starters, this would mean that the vast majority of people in the celestial kingdom are these children. Think about the mortality rate of children over the last 6000 years (or longer if you don't believe in a young earth and/or literal Adam) and it's not hard to see that there were billions of them. On the other hand, members who lived and died faithful probably number somewhere in the tens of millions (including faithful people in the Bible and BOM).Joseph Smith expanded this doctrine in the King Follet discourse when he said:Not only are these children exalted, but they still look like children and reign as Gods. Imagine if we saw God our Father and realized that he looks like a four year old! I think that would blow my mind.I also agree that the doctrine of automatic exaltation for children is weak. I have always believed that those children who do die will be raised again in the millennium and grow to the full stature of man and be allowed to enter into all the saving covenants just as any other person.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I think the Second Anointing is also weak. I dislike it theologically because it seems to take over the function of the final judgement. Once you receive the Second Anointing, you are in no matter what (except for committing the unpardonable sin). The final judgement becomes a rubber stamping ceremony (Final judgement scene: did you commit the unpardonable sin? Let's see, according to your record, after you received your Second Anointing, you killed a few people who were not considered innocent blood, molested your children, but nope, no unpardonable sin. You're in!). I also dislike it because it seems to be administered in a way that doesn't seem to be inspired. The most important criteria for receiving it seems to be whether you served in a high calling (SP, MP on up) or know a high level GA.
Vance Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 No, since you mischaracterized the Evangelical position your "giant hole" doesn't exist. Thanks.You will have to do more than just assert mischaracterization.You will need to explain what, EXACTLY, I got wrong.
Hughes Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You will have to do more than just assert mischaracterization.You will need to explain what, EXACTLY, I got wrong.Because, Jesus paid the price for sin with his blood, the punishment for our sin was laid on him. Isaiah 53:5 "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him," And, Hebrews 9:22 "without shedding of blood is no remission."Evangelicals understand that it was the shedding of Jesus' Blood on the cross that paid the price of sin for all humanity, past, present, and future. As Jesus said, "It is finished." before he died.
Vance Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Because, Jesus paid the price for sin with his blood, the punishment for our sin was laid on him. Isaiah 53:5 "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him," And, Hebrews 9:22 "without shedding of blood is no remission."Evangelicals understand that it was the shedding of Jesus' Blood on the cross that paid the price of sin for all humanity, past, present, and future. As Jesus said, "It is finished." before he died.If it was finished BEFORE he died, when was the "shedding of blood" that brought remission of sins.If it was finished BEFORE he died, why did He need to die at all?So, are you saying that the punishment for sin is NOT separation from God, but something else?So far, you haven't shown EXACTLY where I got it wrong. Could you do so, and be specific.
Hughes Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 If it was finished BEFORE he died, when was the "shedding of blood" that brought remission of sins.If it was finished BEFORE he died, why did He need to die at all?So, are you saying that the punishment for sin is NOT separation from God, but something else?So far, you haven't shown EXACTLY where I got it wrong. Could you do so, and be specific.When was the shedding of Blood? On the Cross. Why did he have to die? He was mortal, life is in the blood, he shed his for our sins.Yes, punishment for sin is separation from God. Where did you get it wrong? You said, "Since you believe that Jesus is your one God, he is incapable of being eternally separated from himself. He therefore not only did NOT suffer the punishment for your sins, He is INCAPABLE of doing so."This is false. Your lack of understanding isn't evidence that Jesus didn't pay the price for our sin. Evangelicals don't claim that everything about the Infinite will be understood by the finite (us), rather it's what scripture teaches. That he is God, yes. That he did pay the price.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Vance and Hughes have a raised what I consider another weak spot in Mormon theology - the atonement. Why can't God just forgive us without allowing his son to be tortured and killed? I forgive people all the time without requiring them to do anything. Why is God different? Because the rocks, trees, and other matter won't honor God if he just forgives people outright (ala Cleon Skousen)?Now that you mention it, the fall of Adam seems like another weak spot. If the entire point of earth life is to test us, why didn't God start the process by placing Adam in a fallen state from the get go. What is the point of placing him in a higher state where he doesn't know good and evil and waiting until he falls from that state.
Vance Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 When was the shedding of Blood? On the Cross.How? Why did he have to die? He was mortal,. . . He was mortal? Are you saying He wasn't God? Yes, punishment for sin is separation from God. Temporary or Eternal separation from God?So, explain to me exactly HOW Christ suffered this punishment?Where did you get it wrong? You said, "Since you believe that Jesus is your one God, he is incapable of being eternally separated from himself. He therefore not only did NOT suffer the punishment for your sins, He is INCAPABLE of doing so."This is false.So, can you explain to me exactly HOW Christ was separated from God without being separate from God? Your lack of understanding isn't evidence that Jesus didn't pay the price for our sin.Well, then, explain it to me.How did Christ, who is not separate from God (according to Evangelical doctrine) was separated from God as a punishment for sin? Evangelicals don't claim that everything about the Infinite will be understood by the finite (us), rather it's what scripture teaches.Well, us scriptures if you can to show exactly how the unseparate became separated.Now, if you what to say that we can't know, then you also can't say that Mormons are wrong, BECAUSE you don't know.That he did pay the price.Ok, just explain to me how Jesus, who is NOT separate from God (in your theology) became separated from God as punishment for sin.
Vance Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Vance and Hughes have a raised what I consider another weak spot in Mormon theology - the atonement.Sorry but this isn't a weak spot in "Mormon" theology as you say, but rather a weak spot in CHRISTIAN theology, IF (big IF there) it is a weak spot at all.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Vance and Hughes have a raised what I consider another weak spot in Mormon theology - the atonement. Why can't God just forgive us without allowing his son to be tortured and killed? I forgive people all the time without requiring them to do anything. Why is God different? Because the rocks, trees, and other matter won't honor God if he just forgives people outright (ala Cleon Skousen)?This is a good question. I would not call it a weak spot in Mormon Theology or even Christian Theology. I would state that this does not have an answer currently. Am I not aware of why God cannot just forgive us. I just know that he did not set the plan up that way. Perhaps it has to do with being able to provide us with a perfect comforter that knows all of the pain of human life.Now that you mention it, the fall of Adam seems like another weak spot. If the entire point of earth life is to test us, why didn't God start the process by placing Adam in a fallen state from the get go. What is the point of placing him in a higher state where he doesn't know good and evil and waiting until he falls from that state.ACtually this is not a weak spot at all. I think God did it this way because he had too. He could not make some thing in a corrupted state (my opinion) and he had to make a way for it to become corrupted through the agency of man.The way to know good from evil is by being in the corrupted state (This earth life). Thus, it was the whole plan from the beginning.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 This is a good question. I would not call it a weak spot in Mormon Theology or even Christian Theology. I would state that this does not have an answer currently. Am I not aware of why God cannot just forgive us. I just know that he did not set the plan up that way. Perhaps it has to do with being able to provide us with a perfect comforter that knows all of the pain of human life.If there is no current answer, then I would say it qualifies as a weak spot. ACtually this is not a weak spot at all. I think God did it this way because he had too. He could not make some thing in a corrupted state (my opinion) and he had to make a way for it to become corrupted through the agency of man.So God can do anything . . . except create us and the earth we live on in a fallen state (its current state)? That seems a bit hard to believe.The way to know good from evil is by being in the corrupted state (This earth life). Thus, it was the whole plan from the beginning.Exactly. So why didn't God just put Adam directly into this earth life without the fall charade (talking serpents, fruits that impart a cosmic understanding of right and wrong, etc., etc.)? It makes no sense to me.
CV75 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Why can't God just forgive us without allowing his son to be tortured and killed? I forgive people all the time without requiring them to do anything. Why is God different?If the entire point of earth life is to test us, why didn't God start the process by placing Adam in a fallen state from the get go. What is the point of placing him in a higher state where he doesn't know good and evil and waiting until he falls from that state.The reason God cannot just forgive us without the Atonement:God makes gods of His children by giving us the opportunity to experience first-hand the full spectrum of the least we can be at point A (physically and spiritually dead) so that we can comprehend the most we can be at point B (eternal), or experience opposition in all things, eventually to the point God does. By definition, the gap between these two points requires an "at-one-ment" for us to stand with Him at point B.He cannot just forgive us without the Atonement because without descending into each individual
Palerider Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 If there is no current answer, then I would say it qualifies as a weak spot. Has the eternal law of Justice been addressed in this thread. When a law is broken a price must be paid? I'm coming in a little late here.......
Palerider Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I second the other posters who feel that see a weak spot in the dead children under eight are automatically exalted doctrine.For starters, this would mean that the vast majority of people in the celestial kingdom are these children. Think about the mortality rate of children over the last 6000 years (or longer if you don't believe in a young earth and/or literal Adam) and it's not hard to see that there were billions of them. On the other hand, members who lived and died faithful probably number somewhere in the tens of millions (including faithful people in the Bible and BOM).Joseph Smith expanded this doctrine in the King Follet discourse when he said:Not only are these children exalted, but they still look like children and reign as Gods. Imagine if we saw God our Father and realized that he looks like a four year old! I think that would blow my mind.I think the Church removed this section of the discourse as being undoctrinal....No?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 If there is no current answer, then I would say it qualifies as a weak spot. So God can do anything . . . except create us and the earth we live on in a fallen state (its current state)? That seems a bit hard to believe.Exactly. So why didn't God just put Adam directly into this earth life without the fall charade (talking serpents, fruits that impart a cosmic understanding of right and wrong, etc., etc.)? It makes no sense to me.I don't believe that God can do anything. That notion certainly is not in the scriptures. IF God could do anything He wishes then you might have 1/2 a point.
Vance Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Has the eternal law of Justice been addressed in this thread. When a law is broken a price must be paid? I'm coming in a little late here.......You make a good point.But then again, that begs the question, "Why does God give the law in the first place?"If there were no law, then there would be no breakage.
keithb Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 The reason God cannot just forgive us without the Atonement:God makes gods of His children by giving us the opportunity to experience first-hand the full spectrum of the least we can be at point A (physically and spiritually dead) so that we can comprehend the most we can be at point B (eternal), or experience opposition in all things, eventually to the point God does. By definition, the gap between these two points requires an "at-one-ment" for us to stand with Him at point B.He cannot just forgive us without the Atonement because without descending into each individual
Jon63 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Does Mormon theology include God and Jesus as seperate beings?Current Mormon Doctrine YesBook of Mormon No (Mosiah 15: 1-4)First Vision Yes (Pearl of Great Price)First Vision No (Original account written by Joseph Smith)New Testament Yes (LDS/KJV Luke 10:22)New Testament No (JST Luke 10:22)I think the biggest weak spot of Mormon theology is that nobody knows what it is!
Lachoneus Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Why can't God just forgive us without allowing his son to be tortured and killed?This is explained in Alma 42. See also 2 Ne 2, 9.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.