Lds Restoration Theology

[mercyngrace]

Not LDS "theology", but doctrine certainly. Christ came to suffer for the sins of this world. If you bring up, like others here, that he came to fulfill the prophesies, I'll tell you that the prophesies weren't necessary, really. Prophesies were bound to say anything God's plan was going to be. The only thing necessary (supposedly) was Christ's suffering.

Nope. It wasn't to just to fulfill prophesies. The atonement is about much more, and involved much more, than suffering and praying. And contrary to what you wrote just "any" suffering and praying wouldn't do. The atonement had to meet certain specific requirements in order for it to have the intended effect.

Side note: Sorry for the typos. My laptop keyboard has been dying a slow death for a couple of months and it's driving me nuts. Argh!!! (There should be an emoticon with a crazy lady pulling her hair out.)

[elguanteloko]

Nope. It wasn't to just to fulfill prophesies. The atonement is about much more, and involved much more, than suffering and praying. And contrary to what you wrote just "any" suffering and praying wouldn't do. The atonement had to meet certain specific requirements in order for it to have the intended effect.

...so, what else was needed? Seems like very important information we should talk about.

Side note: Sorry for the typos. My laptop keyboard has been dying a slow death for a couple of months and it's driving me nuts. Argh!!! (There should be an emoticon with a crazy lady pulling her hair out.)

Oh, no problem. If I ever notice them (and I probably won't) I'll feel in good company since I make them often.

[mercyngrace]

...so, what else was needed? Seems like very important information we should talk about.

1. Sinless sacrifice

2. Completely unjust suffering - couldn't be considered rightfully warranted in any way

3. Had to be voluntary and avoidable

4. Had to culminate in death

5. Had to allow for descent below all things, including second death (absolute separation from God)

6. Had to be motivated by love and compassion

7. The sacrificial Lamb had to be willing to completely absolve His offenders

8. The suffering had to be terrible enough that it would go against the natural desire of any intelligence to endure it willingly

9. The Savior had to be sufficiently godly that the experience would generate empathy rather than bitterness, allowing the Savior to claim the rights of mercy and become an advocate for the undeserving

That's just a shotgun blast of components in random order. There are surely few more. In any event, suffering that was improperly motivated would not suffice. Suffering that did not culminate in death would not suffice. Suffering that was unavoidable or in any way justified would not suffice. Suffering that did not come at supreme agony willingly assumed by One who was capable of rejecting bitterness entirely, would not suffice.

Suffering for the sake of suffering is not what the atonement is about. It isn't about the suffering. It's about how the suffering changes Him and how it changes us.

[elguanteloko]

let's take a look at them:

1. Sinless sacrifice

This is implied if we say "Christ is (a) God" (something Mormons won't deny). Christ is a sinless being and if he sinned he would stop being God (or "a God", anyways). This is as unnecessary as if I told you you needed to wash your hands and you answered that "Not only that, my hands need to be human hands made up of flesh and bones".... you would be right but that is obvious.

2. Completely unjust suffering - couldn't be considered rightfully warranted in any way

Again, it couldn't have been otherwise because Christ would NOT be (a) God if he deserved suffering or punishment.

3. Had to be voluntary and avoidable

same as the previous one.

4. Had to culminate in death

this one is ONLY because God said so, not because the sacrifice required it (outside of prophesies which described what God had said). This is part of my point. If a murderer dies he didn't sacrifice anything and neither did Christ sacrifice anything by getting killed outside of fulfilling prophesies that complied with God's plan, NOT out of necessity to save us.

5. Had to allow for descent below all things, including second death (absolute separation from God)

Second death? What are you talking about? Second death (lds.org):

Those who have willfully rebelled against the light and truth of the gospel will suffer spiritual death. This death is often called the second death (Alma 12:16; Hel. 14:16–19; D&C 76:36–38).

I don't think Christ did this one...

6. Had to be motivated by love and compassion

Sure, but, then again, he can't help himself since this is part of his nature. If not then he wouldn't be God.

7. The sacrificial Lamb had to be willing to completely absolve His offenders

Once again, he couldn't do otherwise since he was God.

8. The suffering had to be terrible enough that it would go against the natural desire of any intelligence to endure it willingly

There is no problem between what I said and this one.

9. The Savior had to be sufficiently godly that the experience would generate empathy rather than bitterness, allowing the Savior to claim the rights of mercy and become an advocate for the undeserving

Once again, this is implied when I said that Christ had to suffer. I wasn't speaking of humans or of anyone else, mercy.

T

hat's just a shotgun blast of components in random order. There are surely few more. In any event, suffering that was improperly motivated would not suffice. Suffering that did not culminate in death would not suffice. Suffering that was unavoidable or in any way justified would not suffice. Suffering that did not come at supreme agony willingly assumed by One who was capable of rejecting bitterness entirely, would not suffice.

...

Suffering for the sake of suffering is not what the atonement is about. It isn't about the suffering. It's about how the suffering changes Him and how it changes us.

I spoke of suffering but never of suffering "for suffering's sake". I said he had to suffer for the sins of this world.

[Calm]

Mudcat, sorry for the previous "half-baked" post. (I'm afraid I don't know how to edit or delete anything here.)

I think you can edit once you get up to 25 posts (the edit button is in the right hand bottom corner right next to "reply". You can up your post count fast by going to Social Hall and participating in the Three Word Story thread or create a Social Forum thread and then talk to yourself,

[mercyngrace]

Just as a reminder, here is your statement:

ETA: The Atonement could have been any suffering, though. All Christ needed for the Atonement was to pray and suffer a lot... but that wasn't God's plan, of course...

(emphasis mine)

I don't think much of what we are dicussing is implied. I think it's taught in LDS standard works but not necessarily implied simply in the word "Christ", however, since we agree on many of the specific components of the atonement, let's focus on the areas of disagreement.

4. Had to culminate in death

this one is ONLY because God said so, not because the sacrifice required it (outside of prophesies which described what God had said). This is part of my point. If a murderer dies he didn't sacrifice anything and neither did Christ sacrifice anything by getting killed outside of fulfilling prophesies that complied with God's plan, NOT out of necessity to save us.

A murderer being put to death is not a sacrifice. A parent jumping in front of a car to push his child out of the way, is. Death on behalf of another is the supreme sacrifice. It signifies complete subjugation of one's self as well as the elevation of the other party. Christ's death validated in very deed, all of His teachings. He had to be abased to be exalted, lose His life to find it, show that He had greater love than any man, etc. His death was an undeniable confirmation of His life.

5. Had to allow for descent below all things, including second death (absolute separation from God)

Second death? What are you talking about? Second death (lds.org):

I don't think Christ did this one...

Christ had to descend below all things to include complete separation from God which occurred on the cross when He was "forsaken". He had to conquer death and hell, which are the second death (Rev. 20:14)

I spoke of suffering but never of suffering "for suffering's sake". I said he had to suffer for the sins of this world.

I took you too literally when you said the Atonement could have been any suffering. You just never know the angle from which people come at an issue or how each of us defines the terms we are using.

[Okrahomer]

I think you can edit once you get up to 25 posts (the edit button is in the right hand bottom corner right next to "reply". You can up your post count fast by going to Social Hall and participating in the Three Word Story thread or create a Social Forum thread and then talk to yourself,

Thanks for the tip! I've been wondering how that thread could possibly have lasted so long.

[elguanteloko]

Just as a reminder, here is your statement:

(emphasis mine)

I don't think much of what we are dicussing is implied. I think it's taught in LDS standard works but not necessarily implied simply in the word "Christ", however, since we agree on many of the specific components of the atonement, let's focus on the areas of disagreement.

OK, wait now. I gave you very specific reasons about what I said... you can't just say "I don't think much of what we are discussing is implied". I told you why it is implied!!! We are not speaking of human beings sacrificing but of (a) God. I even gave you an analogy that you are simply dismissing.

A murderer being put to death is not a sacrifice.

Sure, but the point is that death itself is NOT a sacrifice in itself. There has to be something more.

A parent jumping in front of a car to push his child out of the way, is. Death on behalf of another is the supreme sacrifice. It signifies complete subjugation of one's self as well as the elevation of the other party. Christ's death validated in very deed, all of His teachings. He had to be abased to be exalted, lose His life to find it, show that He had greater love than any man, etc. His death was an undeniable confirmation of His life.

Humans fear death... do you think Christ feared death knowing he was God's son? How is mere death ANY sacrifice for a God who knows he will be crowned with glory and power forever after (though he probably was already mega-powerful before mortal life)? For a father who protects his child, sure. For a God it must be like willingly going out of a room and going to another one. Just open a door and then re-enter (resurrection). How is that a sacrifice, mercy? The suffering is a sacrifice... but dying when you can die and resurrect at will whenever you want?

...this is besides the point I was making, though. My point was that Christ did NOT have to die but just suffer a lot for the sins of this world to save us. Saying "Well, he really did suffer and he really did sacrifice for us" doesn't even being to touch the point I was making.

Christ had to descend below all things to include complete separation from God which occurred on the cross when He was "forsaken". He had to conquer death and hell, which are the second death (Rev. 20:14)

One would think being an all-powerful (or almost all powerful) being God was already conqueror of death and hell. He didn't become a slave of hell and death at any time so as to say he had to "break free" from them. You know Christ "gave up" his life, it was NOT taken from him. The "He" we are using is speaking of a God, mercy, not of a person who had a lot of trouble escaping from "Hades". BTW, the Revelations verse you cited doesn't say (nor hints) to Christ having experienced the "second death". The NIV says that "the lake of fire" is the second death but Christ didn't go there. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire, not Christ.

I took you too literally when you said the Atonement could have been any suffering. You just never know the angle from which people come at an issue or how each of us defines the terms we are using.

Indeed, that part of my statement was just way too unclear, you are right. I apologize for that one.

[mercyngrace]

OK, wait now. I gave you very specific reasons about what I said... you can't just say "I don't think much of what we are discussing is implied". I told you why it is implied!!! We are not speaking of human beings sacrificing but of (a) God. I even gave you an analogy that you are simply dismissing.

I wasn't being intentionally dismissive, just trying to get to the crux of the matter which, if I'm reading you right, is about the necessity of Christ's death.

I don't think some of what I suggested is implied merely in the word Christ because some is specific to LDS theology where the title Christ is used well beyond the bounds of mormondom. For example, many Christians take exception to the idea that a god can sin whereas Alma explains, as you pointed out, that God can cease to be God. So the sinless aspect may be a given but for different reasons. In the case of many Christians, He is sinless because He cannot sin (i.e. His acts by their nature, being acts of God, are always morally right). In the case of Mormons, He is sinless because He chooses to be so.

The voluntary nature of the atonement means something different to Mormons also. To most Christians, "voluntary" in this case simply means He chose to sacrifice Himself for us out of His own will and good nature. In this case, as you say, there is an arbitrary aspect of a God designing a plan that He then keeps to satisfy Himself. For Mormons, "voluntary" means that He willingly chose to abide laws He did not create in order to satisfy demands that aren't His own and claim rights that allow Him to extend salvation to others. IOW, the LDS understanding of the atonement is not arbitrary and requires Christ to submit Himself to laws not of His own making.

The very nature of God is understood differently within the context of LDS scripture so the implications of words that overlap like "Christ", "grace", "atonement", etc, are going to be very different also.

It's early in the a.m. here and I am rambling more than normal but to make a long story just a little shorter, again, I don't think the word Christ necessarily implies all that you suggest - even to many mormons.

Sure, but the point is that death itself is NOT a sacrifice in itself. There has to be something more.

Humans fear death... do you think Christ feared death knowing he was God's son? How is mere death ANY sacrifice for a God who knows he will be crowned with glory and power forever after (though he probably was already mega-powerful before mortal life)? For a father who protects his child, sure. For a God it must be like willingly going out of a room and going to another one. Just open a door and then re-enter (resurrection). How is that a sacrifice, mercy? The suffering is a sacrifice... but dying when you can die and resurrect at will whenever you want?

...this is besides the point I was making, though. My point was that Christ did NOT have to die but just suffer a lot for the sins of this world to save us. Saying "Well, he really did suffer and he really did sacrifice for us" doesn't even being to touch the point I was making.

One would think being an all-powerful (or almost all powerful) being God was already conqueror of death and hell. He didn't become a slave of hell and death at any time so as to say he had to "break free" from them. You know Christ "gave up" his life, it was NOT taken from him. The "He" we are using is speaking of a God, mercy, not of a person who had a lot of trouble escaping from "Hades". BTW, the Revelations verse you cited doesn't say (nor hints) to Christ having experienced the "second death". The NIV says that "the lake of fire" is the second death but Christ didn't go there. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire, not Christ.

A couple of quick points - I will expound tomorrow when I am more awake.

- I'm not sure Christ could resurrect at will prior to the atonement.

- Christ's death didn't have to have meaning in His eyes. It had to have meaning in our eyes.

- He didn't conquer death and hell for Himself, He had to conquer it for us.

The atonement wasn't really about empowering Christ to save us. It was about empowering us to understand how to be saved. The whole affair is about us, not Him. He was God already. It was all for our benefit. So, instead of thinking in terms of boxes to be ticked off on a checklist of salvific acts (suffering, check, prayer, check, mock trial, check, scourging, check, etc), we should be thinking in terms of how these events cause us to relate differently to God and each other. And how that Christlike way of relating to one another creates at-one-ment.

[LeSellers]

the point is that death itself is NOT a sacrifice in itself.

It was for Jesus: He did not have to die. His Father, being immortal, gave Him, Jesus, that same immortality.

On the other hand, His mother, Mary, was mortal, and she gave Him the capability of dying. It is this unique combination of (seemingly ) mutually exclusive traits, that made Him the only One Who could make an Atonement by His death. His death was totally under His control—had He chosen not to die, He would not have done so. But, as our great High Priest, He made the saving Sacrifice that no one else could have offered.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

Mudcat, this may be helpful, especially the last parts.

Prelude to the Restoration

Thanks for the link Libs.

The tail end of it points towards the religious freedom afforded in America. But the article seems to recognize a previous window of opportunity.

It was perhaps inevitable that the empire would be forced to rescind its anti-Christian legislation. The church continued to grow, and the weakening condition of the empire called for unity, not disharmony. Constantine, at the Milvian Bridge in A.D. 312, utilized the cross as his symbol as he crushed his opponent Maxentius. The next year at Milan, Constantine issued his famous Edict of Toleration which granted to all people the right to worship as they pleased, revoking the measures which had meant to suppress Christianity.

Bold mine.

Certainly, it doesn't seem that there was room for a "Restored" Church in the Renaissance era.. lots of conflict between Protestant reformers and Catholics.

Given the article, it draws a picture of how historical events presented a perfect environment for the Restoration in a good fashion.

When you think about it.. the concept of the restoration frames "the Church" as a weak flower that needs the most stringent of environments to take root and all other previous circumstances are untenable for some reason.

This reason, seems to be what God has deemed the fulness of times. To accept such, IMO one would have to accept that the Holy Spirit intentionally restrained himself for 1,600 years or so.

Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

If so, God's liberty of knowledge to those that seek it in faith was actually conditional. Doesn't this come into contrast with the notion that God isn't a respecter of persons?

edited to change some stuff up.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Libs]

Thanks for the response, Mudcat. I was just putting the article out there as information, but if I were to defend it, I would say that the Great Apostasy was not about wiping Christianity from the earth. There were still plenty of Christians who had the light of Christ and even the Holy Spirit, during the two-thousand years that followed Christ's Resurrection, and Christianity actually flourished, after the 3rd century. What was missing were the keys and authority to perform certain, necessary, ordinances. And, even though Christianity did flourish, many plain and precious truths were lost (per LDS theology). Many distortions were being passed along, through the centuries, along with some truths..

[Questing Beast]

I just don't see the significance of the asserted differences: "Restored plain and precious truths", and "lost authority and plain and precious truths". Christianity today is virtually the same mixed bag as it had always been before the RCC gained control of most of the Mediterranean world.

And Mormonism is different, how, exactly? Other than its claims for itself to exclusive "authority" directly from God, what are the doctrines that can be shown to be added upon Christianity? Work for (salvation for) the dead is just a peculiar way of allowing God to be merciful to all men; it isn't introducing anything new to what salvation entails, which is through Christ. It seems to me to be a great deal of talk about very little. If a person takes Christ as Lord and Savior I cannot see where anything beyond that is capable of being argued to finality. Everyone disagrees. And the more ecumenical allow disagreement because it is inevitable, and let everyone walk in his own way, answerable only to God. That mindset includes an enormous number of Christians, and in fact religious and non religious of all stripes.

I believe there was no great apostasy, because there was no monolithic church established until the RRC attained ascendency. That broke up centuries ago, and the Christian world has been back to something similar to the sectarianism prior to the ascendency of the RCC. In that climate, Mormonism came about and flourished. Mormons see this as God laying the groundwork for the "restoration". But I only see it as religious history: and I question a "need" for a "falling away first" just so that eventually Christianity could return to its fragmented original state, just so that Mormonism could arise....

[shalamabobbi]

Does God attempt to do things Vance?

Yes He does. He attempts to save ALL of His children. But since He gave us free agency it ultimately falls upon us whether or not to accept the vehicle He provided to accomplish that.

(Sorry for the interjection, I felt let down by Vance's response)

[Mudcat]

The problem I always had was, "Why would there be an apostasy in the first place?" I see no evidence for it outside of Mormonism's assertions that such took place.

Hi QB,

Sorry for the sluggish response to you and the rest of the posters on the thread.

My FIL managed to doze off at the wheel last week (in mid afternoon) and ran into the back of a log truck that was stopped to turn... while he was going 65 mph in a Pontiac Vibe. It's a wonder he is alive. Lots of broken bones... 7 ribs, his nose, multiple lacerations, the worst of it was a leg that was broken and will need a minimum of two surgeries. But all and all he got off quite lucky. Regardless, its the reason for the delay.

I am in agreement with your statement to this point.

I see religious "evolution" throughout the history of our species. One borrows from its predecessors. Sometimes, but rarely, a new religion emerges that transcends all previous efforts; making full use of their insights and eschewing their errors in the main. Such is Mormonism: the fourth of the great "Abrahamic" religions to come along.

"Religion" seems to be a process that changes with the times but I don't know that I consider it evolutionary. I don't quite know how to explain it well. But I think the fact that we think religiously has very little to do with the things we typically associate with evolution. Religion doesn't seem to make us stronger, smarter or faster.. or something like that.

To me it seems to be something separate from evolution. Christianity in general seems to be an evolutionary failure of sorts when you think about Christ saying we should love our enemies.

But the original problem remains: Mormonism cannot be the exclusive "revelation" meant to save the entire world. It is for a limited or even "select" group of people, not for everybody throughout eternity as it claims.

Yeah.. I get this. I think LDS might think that if you don't get it all right here, you will get it right after your dead.

I see no reason why "God", an infinite being, would limit billions of souls to one paradigm of religious thought. It makes no sense. If the one paradigm resulted in a demonstrably better lifestyle; a better and higher morality; an enlightenment superior to all others, then I would begin to be convinced. But rather, we see Mormonism as merely one in a myriad of previous and ongoing religions, clearly taking its contents from them and adding nothing new or even essential.

I can only go so far with this idea. In the foreground is this. If, as I believe God did send his only begotten Son to save those that would follow, and there is no name other than Christ's by which we are saved.. well I have to stop there.

I don't even see religious people as superior in their moral compasses to the so-called non religious. It seem to me, rather, that for the most part religious people NEED religion in order to "fly straight". Often, most of the time in fact (from my experience), non religious people, untroubled by dogma and the "needs" of religion imposed upon its devotees, are more free to enjoy life simply and foster a "live and let live" charity toward others and their differences distinctly lacking in many religious creeds and their adherents.

Bold mine. I disagree in some respect. Some religious people need religion fly straight into buildings (911 ref) rather than be morally good. As to your experience with nonreligious folks, as I see it, the nonreligious seem to do okay in a culture that is primarily Christian or at the last formerly Christian in general. Though the Netherlands hold some decent potential in that regard.

However, nonreligious regimes are responsible for starving and killing millions in the last few centuries. And such nonreligious philosophies still suppress and victimize many. They certainly don't afford a special status as being "more free to enjoy life" in a general sense.

"Religion will make bad men good and good men better." But also, dogmatic and organized religion is not a necessary ingredient in making a person better. If it is felt to be needful then by all means include religion; even the organized and dogmatic kind. But if it seems spurious or even detrimental to a relationship, then shuck religion altogether, says I. The choice is that of each individual.

I don't agree with quote.

And judgment is only possible for acts, not thoughts or desires: ergo, none of us can look upon a religious or non religious person and say they need to be otherwise...

Bold mine. I would vehemently disagree with you here. I'll grant that a nonreligious person can't really make any pretense to judge someone, because there is no overarching principle that can guide such a person.

But as a Christian, ergo a religious person of sorts, I can judge that things are right or wrong and appeal to my beliefs. I can assert that incest, child molestation, rape, murder, et al are wrong. The nonreligious may be in a quandary in this matter, but I am not.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[TAO]

This reason, seems to be what God has deemed the fulness of times. To accept such, IMO one would have to accept that the Holy Spirit intentionally restrained himself for 1,600 years or so.

My friend, the same question then becomes, why did Jesus come when he did, and not 300 years earlier or later. God just sends them when it is their time, when it is his will to send them. We cannot complain about it, it is their will, and it will have no effect on our salvation in his kingdom.

I believe there is another reason though - what about the revealing forth of the Book of Mormon? Would it have been wise to reveal it to people who did not know about a continent across the seas at the time? And what about while they were still exploring it, would that have been an appropriate times with the colonial wars going on between nations. Nah, it had to wait... until the 1800s... when that boy Joseph found it... God had been cultivating a time, you could say, I guess. I guess he did =).

If so, God's liberty of knowledge to those that seek it in faith was actually conditional. Doesn't this come into contrast with the notion that God isn't a respecter of persons?

My friend, despite those who had faith that Jesus would come before Jesus actually came, that didn't speed up him coming. There were people who received info from God during the Great Apostacy - it just wasn't as clear, nor was it as complete as the revelations that would come forth at the restoration. The restoration was meant to be the gospel of the fullness of time. It is that, and though there are many things not quite revealed to us, the things that God wanted revealed to us were revealed as he wanted them. That is what matters =D.

Best Wishes,

Your Friend,

TAO

[Lance in TX]

Not LDS "theology", but doctrine certainly. Christ came to suffer for the sins of this world. If you bring up, like others here, that he came to fulfill the prophesies, I'll tell you that the prophesies weren't necessary, really. Prophesies were bound to say anything God's plan was going to be. The only thing necessary (supposedly) was Christ's suffering.

If all Christ had to do is suffer a lot and pray, as you say, why did he have to be crucified? Why not stop at the Garden of Gethsemane? He suffered and prayed a LOT there! You do not seem to understand the full requirements of the Atonement!

What religion are you? What form of Christianity are you?

[Questing Beast]

Hi QB,

Sorry for the sluggish response to you and the rest of the posters on the thread.

My FIL managed to doze off at the wheel last week (in mid afternoon) and ran into the back of a log truck that was stopped to turn... while he was going 65 mph in a Pontiac Vibe. It's a wonder he is alive. Lots of broken bones... 7 ribs, his nose, multiple lacerations, the worst of it was a leg that was broken and will need a minimum of two surgeries. But all and all he got off quite lucky. Regardless, its the reason for the delay.

Bummer!!! In contrast, my then-teen-aged daughter fell asleep at the wheel, and awoke, parked on the shoulder of the road, engine running, car in park/neutral, rush-hour traffic flowing by. No explanation. We experience what happens not what we choose.

"Religion" seems to be a process that changes with the times but I don't know that I consider it evolutionary. I don't quite know how to explain it well. But I think the fact that we think religiously has very little to do with the things we typically associate with evolution. Religion doesn't seem to make us stronger, smarter or faster.. or something like that.

To me it seems to be something separate from evolution. Christianity in general seems to be an evolutionary failure of sorts when you think about Christ saying we should love our enemies.

I am not suggesting what the humanist/atheist evolutionaries assert: that religion at best is a mass response to our evolved need for society, bonding us further with a shared paradigm. I do not say that religion "evolved" in this way. Rather "evolving religion" is separate to itself: each paradigm feeds into those that follow. Perhaps "evolved" is not the best term because of the conflation with organic evolution. We are, imho, not evolving metaphysically, at, all. We are already immortals, doing the temporary (and repetitive, so I believe) mortality thing to learn things we cannot know as immortals in a perfect environment. So religion, being metaphysical in substance, is in no way connected to our physical bodies; it is not evolving with organic evolution.

I can only go so far with this idea. In the foreground is this. If, as I believe God did send his only begotten Son to save those that would follow, and there is no name other than Christ's by which we are saved.. well I have to stop there.

But I as an unbeliever can accept Jesus Christ as one of a myriad manifestations of "God"; making the name Jesus Christ the only name by which salvation comes to professing, believing Christians. But that does not in any manner leave out the countless souls that never believe in Jesus Christ. "God" does not limit metaphysical belief, which is as infinitely varied as souls are, to a single paradigm: that is why I insist that the broader, the more infinite concept, is that "God" deals with each soul individually, not dogmatically en mass, via "oracles" or any manner of intermediaries. If the followers of Jesus Christ put words into his mouth, invented aspects of his earthly life, took "authority" to themselves to speak for "God", etc., that is only to be expected of human beings whose memories of their metaphysical selves are blanked in the amnesia we refer to as mortality.

...

I don't agree with quote.

It was a botched paraphrase from memory. The actual quote is given in David Bednar's talk: " "The purpose of the gospel is . . . to make bad men good and good men better". I should have at least said "True religion" does that; then you would not have made reference to 9/11.

I would vehemently disagree with you here. I'll grant that a nonreligious person can't really make any pretense to judge someone, because there is no overarching principle that can guide such a person.

But as a Christian, ergo a religious person of sorts, I can judge that things are right or wrong and appeal to my beliefs. I can assert that incest, child molestation, rape, murder, et al are wrong. The nonreligious may be in a quandary in this matter, but I am not.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

What makes a religious person any better judge of the thoughts and desires of another than a non religious person? I don't recall Jesus Christ making such a distinction. Rather, when I judge, I will be judged on that basis by which I pass judgment of others. My being religious does not change this a bit.

If we accept "the light of Christ is in every man" as reality, then by far the vast majority of people behave morally rather than immorally. And evidence is all around us that this is true far more often than not. If it were not so, then we would be overrun with theft, assault, brigandage and murder on a huge scale. Instead, these aberrations of behavior are reserved for our more dramatic moments of notable history; our wars for the most part. When we are not descending to such depths, we get along ethically with one another the vast majority of the time. The "godless" do not de facto perpetrate or condone, rape, incest, child abuse and etc.

The religious may be in a quandary about the "degenerating condition of society", but I am not. The world is better today than it has been at any other time in our history....