How Can God Forgive Sin?

[mercyngrace]

I'm not sure if i'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that God cannot forgive someone until the person that person has wronged is ready for God to forgive them?

That makes more sense than what i thought you were saying.

Well then, just to drive you a little nuts, I'll add this...

I don't believe God will expressly withhold forgiveness from anyone who has come unto Christ based on the judgments of their accusers BUT I do believe the forgiven, if they are truly worthy of His presence, will not rest until the have done absolutely everything possible to reclaim those who have ought against them.

In the same way that Christ was exalted because He was abased for others, the truly righteous may opt to become servants, and making of themselves no reputation, so that they can seek out and save those they once offended.

[Brother Pete]

Well then, just to drive you a little nuts, I'll add this...

I don't believe God will expressly withhold forgiveness from anyone who has come unto Christ based on the judgments of their accusers BUT I do believe the forgiven, if they are truly worthy of His presence, will not rest until the have done absolutely everything possible to reclaim those who have ought against them.

In the same way that Christ was exalted because He was abased for others, the truly righteous may opt to become servants, and making of themselves no reputation, so that they can seek out and save those they once offended.

Sister Grace,

I have never heard the Atonement explained so well and so convincingly. Truly, you have shown that Jesus Christ truly made the most wondrous of sacrifices for the entire human family. It is remarkable that each who have found their way into His Church and have numbered themselves amongst the Saints are blessed with an insight into the mysteries of God that no others have!

I am filing away your words for reference in a future talk - they are THAT clear and insightful. It would be a shame for me to lose them.

Everlasting,

Brother Pete

[Brother Pete]

Well then, just to drive you a little nuts, I'll add this...

I don't believe God will expressly withhold forgiveness from anyone who has come unto Christ based on the judgments of their accusers BUT I do believe the forgiven, if they are truly worthy of His presence, will not rest until the have done absolutely everything possible to reclaim those who have ought against them.

In the same way that Christ was exalted because He was abased for others, the truly righteous may opt to become servants, and making of themselves no reputation, so that they can seek out and save those they once offended.

Sister Grace,

A couple of years ago I had the privilege and blessing of joining President Boyd K. Packer for supper. I was among many other Church leaders and priesthood brethren, and President Packer took the opportunity to teach us about the Atonement. Tears come to my eyes even as I remember what he said. President Packer opened the scriptures to the Doctrine and Covenants and read from Section 127. After expounding on the nature of descending below all things, President Packer said something I'll never forget. He said that Christ shed one drop of blood for every human being ever to exist and for every human being that will ever exist. President Packer continued on to say that if we were to ponder that each of us has one drop of immortal blood attached to our lives, we would strive to live worthy of Him who shed that blood for us.

Whenever I find myself weak, spiritually, or tempted, I simply turn my mind to my personal drop of blood, and know that it represents my salvation.

Everlasting,

Brother Pete

[mfbukowski]

My question is this. If good is actually a standard unto itself, then how is it possible for God to forgive sin? Sin would be a direct transgression against good rather than a direct transgression of an adherent to good like God, I would think.

In that respect, it would seem that to hold such a view then one would need some sort of mechanism that established God's authority to speak on behalf of good. How are God's judicial powers granted?

I haven't read any other posts yet.

Good is not a standard unto itself. I am not sure what that could even mean. There is no such "thing" as "standards" floating around somewhere in a Platonic sense- indeed as Plato would see it.

Good is conformance with the rules God himself has established for himself to allow the Plan of Salvation to happen. I believe God is "self-determined" by rules he has made for himself voluntarily and the following of which we define as "good" because they allow us to follow his purposes for us.

As a convert, I decided to take on the rules of the church I was joining because I believed God wanted me to. I freely accepted those rules, just as I accept that for the good of society, we drive on the right side of the road in the USA to prevent accidents.

It is not etched somewhere in the universe that we should drive on the right- but we accept that rule when we get a driver's license here in the US. We give up the freedom- we are determined- by ourselves- to accept that rule. (self-determination)

We are also determined by other laws which we have decided to accept through our representatives (theoretically).

If I am on a diet, I freely accept a rule for myself, and give away the freedom to eat, let's say chocolate cake. I have made that rule for myself. If I break that rule, I am going against my own good and in effect denying my own best good- which is NOT to eat chocolate cake because I know it is not good for me (say, as a diabetic perhaps)

So too with God. If he breaks the rules he has set up for himself (we call these natural laws and ethical rules, insofar as we understand them) He is going against his own plan both for himself AND for us. He is in conflict and inconsistent with himself, and that is not what Gods do- so he would in effect cease to be God, because the very conception of God is that he "always does good". That is part of what defines him and makes him what he is.

So in effect, God is considered "good" because he does what he says he will do, and we are good because we also do what he shows us is best for us- what works best to have a peaceful society and harmony for the good of all.

He has the authority to make the rules because- well because he organized the whole system.

"My universe, my rules"

But if you analyze it, everything "good" allows the plan of salvation to go forward by giving us peace freedom civilization etc vs turning it all into a jungle.

Everything "bad" goes in the other direction

Edited May 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Bold mine David. This notion seems to fall more in line with my own thinking. It makes more sense to me that a being or body that establishes/determines something has rights to adjudicate. I may be missing something though, if such is the case, doesn't this set Blake a little outside general held LDS ideas.. or am I missing something?

I don't know if Ostler talks about self-determination- which works to limit agency on one level and to extend it in another level (Isaiah Berlin's positive and negative liberty) but that is what it is. I haven't read Ostler somewhat deliberately because I am weird. Gonna hafta do that one of these days.

But yes, positive liberty is brought about through community agreement

But self-determination is the key imo- that is why God is in a sense both omnipotent- totally free- and yet not omnipotent- there are things he does/will not do because he has chosen not to.

So we LDS see omnipotence as half-empty or half full depending on how we want to see it at the moment. He voluntarily gives up a portion of his omnipotence and transcendence to be an immanent God who can interact with his children

Edited May 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mercyngrace]

Sister Grace,

I have never heard the Atonement explained so well and so convincingly. Truly, you have shown that Jesus Christ truly made the most wondrous of sacrifices for the entire human family. It is remarkable that each who have found their way into His Church and have numbered themselves amongst the Saints are blessed with an insight into the mysteries of God that no others have!

I am filing away your words for reference in a future talk - they are THAT clear and insightful. It would be a shame for me to lose them.

Everlasting,

Brother Pete

Thanks for the kind words Brother Pete. I wish I could say that these beautiful thoughts are mine, I may articulate them according to my understanding but they are the same truths found in the scriptures and words of prophets, past and present. The gospel is so much more than "good news". Like Lewis' Narnian characters after the culminating Last Battle, I find that the further up and in I go, the more exquisite beauty, profound peace, and inexplicable love there is. To paraphrase Elder Maxwell, this good news is inexhaustible.

Cate

[mfbukowski]

I disagree. I feel the Atonement - including his entire life and ministry - when comprehended and internalized, does more to bring us to a point where we allow ourselves to accept forgiveness, and to willingly drop baggage that would otherwise halt our joy and progression.

To rephrase, my position is that Jesus didn't come so God would forgive. God has been capable of forgiveness from before we got on the earth. He is a God of Love, and Compassion. Jesus came to show us love, and to accept, understand, and truly believe the forgiveness, and to encourage us to walk back, unashamed, to our Covenant Family. "We love God because he first loved us."

Someone or something requiring a bloody and painful sacrifice to allow God to forgive us makes no sense to me, and is in a sense repugnant. However, a god coming down to show how real his love was, and what he was willing to do to communicate that love to us, however, rings of beauty and truth. And makes me desire to repent out of love for both the Father and the Son.

I agree- and see it more as a healing than anything else. The atonement allows us to go on with life- to put aside all the rotten things we have done and repent and forgive ourselves.

But I really value the image of the bloody sacrifice as well- it is that understanding that makes it all possible, at least for me, to see as a tangible reminder of God's willingness to forgive me of all I have done which requires his grace to make me whole.

And I say "image" because I wasn't there, and I think that is the best any of us can do is imagine what Christ does for us.

Edited May 9, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sister Grace,

I have never heard the Atonement explained so well and so convincingly

Get used to it- she does that on a regular basis! She's a treasure!

[changed]

...it seems LDS take the first horn of Euthyphro's dilemma.

I agree - (Alma 42 outlines the conditions under which God would cease to be God so...)

My question is this. If good is actually a standard unto itself, then how is it possible for God to forgive sin?

I like this analogy from: http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-atonement-by-cleon-skousen/

During the Civil War there was a 19 year old soldier who went to sleep on guard duty. A whole section of the Union army was wiped out in that particular sector. He lost many of his very best friends all because he went to sleep and they were able to make a surprise attack on one flank of that particular defense effort. He survived the battle. He was court-martialed and sentenced to be hanged for neglect of duty for going to sleep while servicing as a guard, which was routine military law. The death sentence and order of execution was placed on the desk of President Lincoln and he was prepared to sign it. We lost a lot of valuable men because a 19 year old soldier went to sleep. President Lincoln was communicated with by a little old woman. This mother said to President Lincoln, “When this war started, I had a husband and 6 sons. First I lost my husband, then I lost my sons–5 of them. I just have one son left. And he’s about to be executed for neglect of duty. He feels terrible about what he did. He knows he deserves to die. President Lincoln, I wonder if, maybe, because you have the pardoning power under the constitution, you could find it in your heart to let me have the last of my family–for my sake?” President Lincoln said to the mother, “For your sake, I pardon your son. I pray God he’ll survive the war and be a blessing to you all the days of your life.”

sacrifice pays the price of justice ... the little mother had sacrificed her husband/children to the country, so the country owed her - it was no longer about what the 19yo did, it was about the sacrifice his mother made... similar to the atonement.

Edited May 9, 2012 by changed

[Storm Rider]

I have little time to respond, so this will be short. Perhaps others will fix my brevity.

It is only possible to forgive sin when the sinner has accepted Jesus Christ as his or her Savior, been baptized by water and by fire, and then does Grace become operative. Jesus willingly and voluntarily suffered for sin when He had no sin, thus making his suffering, His Atonement, infinite, in the same way that 1 divided by 0 is effectively infinite. It is thus "large enough" to accommodate the forgiveness of all whom the Son chooses to accomodate. This is, in fact, the nature of Grace.

I would not agree with this and I don't think I agree with the concept that good/righteousness/light can exist absent God. First the more mundane. From the beginning of the world most sin could be forgiven. This was evident in ancient Israel.

The Atonement and the foregiveness it offers is universal and far more inclusive. It offers the doorway for all man to return God and for the reuniting of the body with the spirit, the resurrection. This universal forgiveness should not be confused with the personal forgiveness one receives through the process of repentance.

Does Good (etc.) exist absent God? A kneejerk response: No, God's very existence brings Light into all creation. His presence is righteousness and our righteousness a reflection of him and his glory.

God's ability to forgive is based upon the broken heart and the contrite spirit, a willingness or desire to align our actions with his Will, and the ability to make all our sins as white as snow; to remember them no more.

[TAO]

Mudcat, I'd take a look at mfb's example. It explains it well =). Of course, there are some that also hold the other perspective, so I guess you could say there are LDS on both sides of the horn.

[Zeta-Flux]

Mudcat,

Good is indeed a standard unto itself, which God is bound by. But at the same time, that standard is God, in the sense that goodness leads us to be more like Him, and His work is to bring to pass our exaltation.

Our scriptures teach us that to every kingdom there is a law. One of those laws is forgiveness. In other words, it is good for God to forgive us (when we repent, but not otherwise) because it leads us to be like Him, which is the purpose of the laws in our kingdom.

[Messenger]

I think it is interesting how people try and understand some of the gospel concepts. And, I suppose I try to compartmentalize certain things myself on occasion. The most interesting explanation I have ever heard of the atonement came from an LDS talk to some youth that a friend gave me on CD Rom (I'll have to look that up to get a name). He basically defined the elements as intelligences, which can be commanded. They obey out of respect for Jesus Christ, and what he did. And while the pain he felt was not specifically equal to every person who has, or will have sinned, it was so great of a sacrifice and so painful for one person, Jesus Christ, to bear, that those elements or intelligences obey when his name is used to command those elements. If I may speculate, our memories and the feelings of guilt of sin are a component of our physical being. They are part of the structure of our brain in this telestial world. And, no doubt that there are also elements of a different nature in other levels as well (Spiritual, Terrestrial, Celestial). Why wouldn't it be possible, that when we follow the steps of repentance that we feel the mental anguish of our sins removed, simply by the elements obeying Christs command? I've had blessings that have commanded my physical being to be healed, and I have felt the changes in my body as a direct result - it was just as much as a spiritual experience as a physical one. Because of this, I know that if the physical surroundings needed to change, because it was right and holy, that I could change them because the elements of this world recognize the priesthood I hold - which represents Christ.

Its an incredible mechanism to understand, but not required to understand. The basic concept is easy to understand if we simply have faith. We forgive to be forgiven. We ask God for help in removing our bad feelings we have towards others because of their trespass against us. Then, through this miraculous change, the burden of sin (not its memory) is wiped from us, like it never happened. If only the world used and worked this concept more often, we would have a much better world to live in.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Messenger

[David T]

I think it is interesting how people try and understand some of the gospel concepts. And, I suppose I try to compartmentalize certain things myself on occasion. The most interesting explanation I have ever heard of the atonement came from an LDS talk to some youth that a friend gave me on CD Rom (I'll have to look that up to get a name).

That's Cleon Skousen's 'Meaning of the Atonement'. A lot of people love it. I, personally, hate the implications (Jesus was tortured and murdered because our fellow intelligences refused to accept mercy and wouldn't respect God and give him power without submitting to blood and torture and pain and suffering? This is comforting?!). I can't stand most of Skousen's scriptural 'explanations', and find his methodology incredibly frustrating and misguided.

Edited May 9, 2012 by David T

[Messenger]

That's Cleon Skousen's 'Meaning of the Atonement'. A lot of people love it. I, personally, hate the implications (Jesus was tortured and murdered because our fellow intelligences refused to accept mercy and wouldn't respect God and give him power without submitting to blood and torture and pain and suffering? This is comforting?!). I can't stand most of Skousen's scriptural 'explanations', and find his methodology incredibly frustrating and misguided.

In these advanced discussions, I think we are talking about theories, not doctrine. I neither hate it or love it. I have found that in order to be inspired to find personal truth, that I must align my thoughts and intentions with love. One can reject a theory one knows to be wrong. But its quite another for a person to go out on a limb and subject themselves to harsh opinions that are outside the envelope of doctrine in order to inspire others. For that, I admire him and his courage. In fact, I find that pattern in some of the people and leaders I respect, including Christ. It's much like an exercise in brain storming - we allow our imagination to come up with new concepts in order to try them and be inspired by them. Outright rejection without careful consideration is counterproductive to the intentions of the O.P.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Messenger

[thesometimesaint]

Someone had to pay the price for sin. Either we pay for it ourselves, or though the Atonement of Christ. I am more than thankful Jesus the Christ paid that price.

[mercyngrace]

That's Cleon Skousen's 'Meaning of the Atonement'. A lot of people love it. I, personally, hate the implications (Jesus was tortured and murdered because our fellow intelligences refused to accept mercy and wouldn't respect God and give him power without submitting to blood and torture and pain and suffering? This is comforting?!). I can't stand most of Skousen's scriptural 'explanations', and find his methodology incredibly frustrating and misguided.

I think some of Skousen's ideas are interesting but there is definitely a point at which we diverge in our thinking.

I think the most basic mechanism of the atonement is visible in family relationships every day and it does have to do with spiritually immature beings (us - as intelligences) demanding justice without realizing the hypocrisy of the demand.

Consider two children in the midst of a conflict approaching a parent.

Child one lays blame at the feet of child two and child two defiantly protests, shifting the blame to child one.

A loving parent, whose very existence has proven sacrificial in the lives of each child, takes each child aside. This parent looks lovingly at child one and says "I have spent my life, my time, and my energy, and all that I am to provide for you. It has cost me dearly. I have shed tears. I have spent sleepless nights. I've missed meals. I have cared for you when I was sick, exhausted, and carrying burdens that weren't my own. I have sacrificed other personally rewarding opportunities, professional ambition, and public acclaim because I love you. What's more, I love your brother. Just as I want you to have happiness. I want your brother to have happiness. Will you forgive him for my sake?"

The process is repeated with child two.

If you've never tried this as a parent, consider it. The more mature your child is, the less you will have to verbalize the sacrifices you've made as a parent (the nails in your hands and feet).

I've done this with my children for some time and it rarely fails to bring the house into harmony even as imperfect as I am.

Imagine how ineffective this would be if my children never saw me sacrifice for them and if they were unsure of the depths to which I would descend for them. Because they have seen me suffer for them, even in the small ways that are required of me, and because they know, to some degree, the depth of my love, they respond to my requests for forgiveness on behalf of each other.

The atonement is about reconciling relationships.

The laws of justice and mercy aren't written on stone tablets. They are basic principles of interpersonal relationships.

Edited May 9, 2012 by mercyngrace

[David T]

Someone had to pay the price for sin. Either we pay for it ourselves, or though the Atonement of Christ. I am more than thankful Jesus the Christ paid that price.

Who got paid? How is sin quantified by a 'price'? Who sets this price? How is punishing an innocent have anything to do with Justice?

If there was a rapist, and I love them, and choose to go to jail for them, do we consider this fulfilling Justice?

Why then do we consider Jesus's punishment on behalf of others being Just?

This model of Atonement, and I understand it's popular, doesn't make any sense to me.

[DBMormon]

I didn't read all the replies, but I always try to liken the scriptures to myself. As a parent I want my kids to be good. They make mistakes, and when they do I am upset at them, but I don't hold a grudge. I forgive them openly.

He is our Heavenly Father so smae principle in a more perfect way!!!

[Mudcat]

@ All, thanks for all the replies. The thread has gotten ahead of me, so I won't be able to keep up with responses in any direct way. I am still reading through them at present.

I will confess I am surprised there seems to be a number of views on the topic I didn't anticipate. I assumed there was a fairly standard default position and some here have reflected that. 3 responses really stand out uniquely.

I've made a similar observation.

First, the Plan of Salvation requires that there be some universal “entity” that is more powerful than God, and keeping God from just forgiving us of our sins outright. One of the fundamental ideas of the Plan of Salvation is that God would love for us to return to live with Him, but there’s something more powerful than Him that keeps Him from forgiving us our sins.

For some reason, this entity (I’ll call it “Justyce”) determines whether or not someone is allowed to become God-like (and receive Celestial Glory). Justyce has a set of universally applied rules for humans that want to progress and become more god-like. If a humanoid spirit breaks any of these rules, Justyce will not allow God to exalt them.

Justyce has communicated these rules to God somehow, so God is able to communicate the rules to humans living on Earth.

<snip>

The real question is how all of this was discovered by the humanoid spirits. Justyce isn't just some universal force like gravity, because it would apparently be able to communicate the intricate details of sin and repentance. If it weren't able to communicate this, then all of these rules (and the whole sacrifice/atonement thing) would have to be figured out by trial and error (like how we figured out gravity).

Cinepro,

Bold mine, your anthropomorphic view of "good" does address the difficulty of good being a principle rather than an entity.

But, underline mine, it presents it's own challenges. I at least know that from a Biblical perspective the notion of a being "above" God is out of line. Can't say if there is Scriptural support for it from an LDS view. The main difficulty, I would see is if such a being did exist the notion of "God" seems like an unnecessary step... or perhaps just moves the goal posts back towards Justyce.

I believe that “Good” is “God” just as much as “God” is “Good.” There is no separating one from the other as a thing unto itself. For example, it is said that God abides eternal law, but what I think this means is that God is Eternal Law, in Very Person (or put more profanely, eternal law is a Personality, or even more profanely, an attribute of the Personality of God). He is the integration of all divine attributes (in their totality called Good), and all divine attributes are Him. For our profane learning purposes it is evidently sometimes helpful to separate the concepts, or approach the oneness of them by degrees.

How this relates to His ability and means of forgiving is that God is Forgiveness, which is a synthesis of concepts described in this thread (and elsewhere) about the Atonement.

This also relates to an Inseparably Connected, Eternal, Perfected Body and Spirit being Good, which is His work and glory.

Nice post CV. This seems to be a path that many non-LDS Christians take on the topic. In general it's phrased a bit different, in that where you say "attributes" they would say "nature". But the sentiment creates a third favorable option by grounding God and Good in "attribute" or "nature".

Good is not a standard unto itself. I am not sure what that could even mean. There is no such "thing" as "standards" floating around somewhere in a Platonic sense- indeed as Plato would see it.

Good is conformance with the rules God himself has established for himself to allow the Plan of Salvation to happen. I believe God is "self-determined" by rules he has made for himself voluntarily and the following of which we define as "good" because they allow us to follow his purposes for us.

You and I might see the issue of what exactly the Plan of Salvation is, but as for the rest we are really close.

A speculative followup on that.

I wonder what the ramifications of such a position have on Good from the standpoint of an exalted person who peopled another world . Would they self determine their rules, or is their some inherent notion that any rules they determined would be synonymous with the ones they were exalted under?

[mfbukowski]

I wonder what the ramifications of such a position have on Good from the standpoint of an exalted person who peopled another world . Would they self determine their rules, or is their some inherent notion that any rules they determined would be synonymous with the ones they were exalted under?

I think there are universal laws which pertain to, and which we define as "good" and which all possible societies would agree upon in principle. They would value the life of their species, peaceable living at least within their culture, and they would create rules which would protect and promote the growth of a peaceable culture, and I would bet that their laws and rules would look almost exactly like our ten commandments and our "golden rule".

What is interesting about the existence of these universal laws is that one observer could look at them and say that "God gave them to us" and another could interpret them in terms of "social evolution"- that the laws evolved because they have survival value for the culture.

I would say that both observers would be "right" and that the two are not mutually exclusive by any means. What works for the survival of the species and the survival of the culture are also what God has given us as "laws" thereby always, of course, leaving it to faith to interpret the final understanding for the individual

The Didache is a great example of this and speaks of the "Two Ways"- the way of life and the way of death. What doesn't lead to life, leads to death. Drug addiction for example creates a downward spiral leading ultimately, if unchecked, to death. Drug addiction I would wager would also be against the law in any society, because it is destructive to the society and unproductive for the citizenry.

So ultimately what is "good" is what works well to give one a happy and peaceful life.

I mean look at the Vulcans! "Live long and prosper"! What else is there? Taking it to the other side in heaven is really just the same wish- extended to eternity.

[thesometimesaint]

David T:

Who got paid? How is sin quantified by a 'price'? Who sets this price? How is punishing an innocent have anything to do with Justice?

If there was a rapist, and I love them, and choose to go to jail for them, do we consider this fulfilling Justice?

Why then do we consider Jesus's punishment on behalf of others being Just?

This model of Atonement, and I understand it's popular, doesn't make any sense to me.

We got paid. Everything has a price. The price of sin is spiritual death. God set the price. God can tolerate sin with no degree of allowance. There is only one innocent, and we aren't him. Jesus voluntarily paid that price so we don't have to.

If that rapist truly repented, and lived up to that repentence for the rest of his life, I might consider it. But that would not absolve me of my sins. Who pays that price? Jesus was the only sinless one. Only he could pay the price for everyones sins.

While mercy can't rob justice, justice can't rob mercy. It was an act of mercy for Jesus to pay the price for sin

For God so love the world that he sent his only begotten son, that whomsoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

[Log]

Jesus was tortured and murdered because our fellow intelligences refused to accept mercy and wouldn't respect God and give him power without submitting to blood and torture and pain and suffering? .

Why not therefore save everyone, regardless, without requiring an Atonement in which Jesus had to submit to being tortured and murdered?

I will give some of my opinions, since I am still, for whatever reason, permitted to post here.

Skousen has, so far as I can tell, the only cogent and scripturally consistent account of the Atonement, which is not to say I agree with all of it.

Blake Ostler has his own thesis - what he terms the "Compassion theory of Atonement." Ostler's thesis does not account for Hebrews 10:10, nor D&C 19:17, which jointly serve to break his theory.

You have to bear in mind what kind of society the Celestial Kindgom is. All are indwelling, all are all-knowing. They know what each is thinking and feeling at all times.

Intelligences don't want to be joined to, nor under the direction of, those who have shown that they will not keep the laws upon which such a society must exist. There must be charity and faith and hope at all times among all participants, or the society is fractured and beings are cast out, for who wants to be united to such as refuse to forgive, to feel their ill-will, having to eternally walk on eggshells, or worse, who direct in order to feed their ego and vanity?

So Christ, by submitting first to drinking the cup of the wrath of God, which is spiritual death - being cut off from the light and the life of the Father - and also by suffering every possible physical pain, and also by submitting to being tortured and executed, demonstrates that they who are possessed of the divine nature will be faithful in all circumstances, at all times, under the literally most extreme circumstances such a being may be placed in. Thus he made it possible for such as did not keep the law but also did turn and repent with all their might, mind, and strength in submission to God may receive the divine nature and become as he is - because that was the condition upon which the Father said mercy should be extended. That Christ succeeded is a public and eternal vindication of the divine nature, and the judgement of the Father.

The divine nature is bestowed upon all such as will submit themselves as fully to God as Christ did and to none else. That is the plan of salvation.

Thus, justice is that them who will not abide by the law of God - those who are not possessed of the divine nature - are not received into the Celestial society, but are placed somewhere else, where they will be most comfortable.

Mercy is that one who did not keep the law, but did turn and repent with all their might, mind, and strength, are given the divine nature, which qualifies them for the Celestial society.

Sleep deprivation forbids me to make this a fully-fleshed out account, but I trust the thrust of my thinking is plain.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Log

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Hi all,

The question I have is slightly more complex than the OP title and it may have a short anwer.

It seems that LDS believe that good exists apart from God, more specifically that there is some standard of good that is apart from God that God is in complete agreement with. In a sense this agreement with good seems to be the qualifier for God to be God.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

He must be "holy" by some standard, unless he is able to simply do whatever he wants, then it is just "holy" as defined him. The scriptures speak of "evil" and that "he repented of the evil he thought to do", what made his thoughts or intent evil?

[changed]

That's Cleon Skousen's 'Meaning of the Atonement'. A lot of people love it. I, personally, hate the implications (Jesus was tortured and murdered because our fellow intelligences refused to accept mercy and wouldn't respect God and give him power without submitting to blood and torture and pain and suffering? This is comforting?!). I can't stand most of Skousen's scriptural 'explanations', and find his methodology incredibly frustrating and misguided.

I liked the "little mother" story, but not so much the intelligences part of it... I would not say that the intelligences demanded it, but rather justice demanded it.... if you take the first horn of Euthyphro's dilemma, then justice is it's own separate entity which exists without our ability to alter it - justice must be served, the piper must be paid...

..How is sin quantified by a 'price'? ....

the price is infinite... it would have to be an eternal/unquestionable kind of a payment - I can't think of anything other than the atonement that would pay the price and satisfy justice, can you?

Edited May 9, 2012 by changed