How Can God Forgive Sin?

[Zeta-Flux]

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?

1. Justice. 2. The punishment is set in the law. 3. God. 4. In and of itself nothing.

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

No. But you also don't have the power to heal all of the effects of the sin.

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

The punishment wasn't just (and it wasn't unjust either) except in the sense that Christ agreed to it with full knowledge of the price.

But to answer the question I think you are asking: The reason Christ, of all people, can atone for our sins is that in the premortal life we all agreed to the law as it was set. And, as it was set, it provided a means for the law-giver to take the punishment in our stead. There had to be a bite to the law, as Lehi says in 2 Nephi 2. An eternal punishment. Christ is the only one who could, can, and does meet those demands.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[swfarnsworth]

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. [...]

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.

[...]

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).

Are you suggesting that Justyce (I like the name you came up with, by the way ) is a concious entity? As others have pointed out, the notion that there could be some being higher than God is unfounded in scripture.

[Comments in bold.]

The demand for "justice" in the sense that evil-doers must be punished actually comes from lesser intelligences like Satan (the accuser) and men (our blood cries out when we have been mistreated, for example).

[When you refer to "justice" (within the quotation marks), are you referring to the desire to see the offender suffer, the desire to have the offender repay the offended, or both?]

Regards,

Steele Farnsworth

[mercyngrace]

Steele,

By "justice" I mean both. I think our sense of being fairly dealt with is what compels us to seek both restitution and punishment. I use the quotation marks because I don't think this is the real definition of godly justice. We really can't make restitution in most cases and punishment of the offender doesn't bring back what was lost.

The way God's justice is executed is by laying waste to the wicked, our "old" men and raising us up as "new" men and women in Christ.

[zerinus]

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.

Can you tell me what is the basis of that claim? Do you have a statement from a General Authority, something published in a Church manual or handbook, or in the standard works that in your opinion establishes that as a doctrine of Mormonism? I am not personally aware of such a statement; and establishing the truth of that claim seems to me must be the starting point before your question can be discussed.

Edited May 10, 2012 by zerinus

[Messenger]

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...

Is the Piper intelligent? How about the "little mother"? Are we?

[Messenger]

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.

David T,

Its not only popular, its doctrine. Here are a few references below that should help when understanding grace and the atonement.

Elder David A. Bednar - The Atonement and the Journey of Mortality

"Most of us know that when we do wrong things, we need help to overcome the effects of sin in our lives. The Savior has paid the price and made it possible for us to become clean through His redeeming power. Most of us clearly understand that the Atonement is for sinners. I am not so sure, however, that we know and understand that the Atonement is also for saints—for good men and women who are obedient, worthy, and conscientious and who are striving to become better and serve more faithfully. We may mistakenly believe we must make the journey from good to better and become a saint all by ourselves, through sheer grit, willpower, and discipline, and with our obviously limited capacities.

The gospel of the Savior is not simply about avoiding bad in our lives; it also is essentially about doing and becoming good. And the Atonement provides help for us to overcome and avoid bad and to do and become good. Help from the Savior is available for the entire journey of mortality—from bad to good to better and to change our very nature."

---------

President Henry B. Eyring - O Ye That Embark

"To qualify us to receive that gift, He gave us a mortal body, the opportunity to be tempted to sin, and a way to be cleansed from that sin and to rise in the First Resurrection. He gave us His Beloved Son, Jehovah, as our Savior to make that possible. The Savior was born in mortal life, was tempted but never sinned, and then in Gethsemane and on Golgotha paid the price of our sins so that we could be cleansed. The purifying can come only to those who have faith enough in Jesus Christ to repent of sin, be cleansed through the ordinance of baptism, and make and keep covenants to obey all His commandments."

---------

President Henry B. Eyring - That He May Write upon Our Hearts

"There is one need even hardened and proud people cannot believe they can meet for themselves. They cannot lift the weight of sin from their own shoulders. And even the most hardened may at times feel the prick of conscience and thus the need for forgiveness from God. A loving father, Alma, taught that need to his son Corianton this way: “And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also” (Alma 42:15).

And then, after bearing testimony of the Savior and His Atonement, the father made this plea for a softened heart: “O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility” (Alma 42:30)."

----------

President Boyd K. Packer - The Mediator Jesus Christ

"...the day came and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full. Only then did he realize that his creditor had not only the power to repossess [take away] all that he owned but also the power to cast him into prison as well. “I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.” “Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?” The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then nor think I should need it ever.” “It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it, and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.” There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail [win] except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt, there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded. “If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served and mercy also? There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time."

--------------------------

--------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxhp2HATB0

Edited May 10, 2012 by Messenger

[David T]

One of the most influential books I've read on the subject is the book Options on Atonement in Christian thought, by Stephen Finlan. Highly, HIGHLY recommend this book.

It details all the metaphors/models used to explain Atonement in the Bible, gives historical background and precedent for them, , and notes how even within some of the models themselves, there's some self-contradition and mixed-metaphors going on (especially in Paul's writings).

It's a fascinating study on why and how certain models were used to explain the Atonement to particular audiences, and expresses how it is only natural to evolve and update the metaphors to current understanding. There's a VERY LDS-esque sugestion at the end that the future of Atonement theology metaphor may lie in the expression in terms of the Family Relationship and Dynamic, but that an unwillingness to move beyond the biblical metaphor is what holds many back, with an expression for a new revelatory evolution that would allow for the transition.

I don't believe any Atonement theory needs to account for every model used to explain it to a particular audience in the already existing scriptures.

While not an LDS-authored book, this has opened up new readings and approaches to the LDS-specific canon, and amazingly placed the LDS Church in a POWERFUL place to fulfil the needed evolution and expression of Atonement metaphor. We're already very much on the way to it, IMO.

Really, no matter how much you may already thin kyou know about how Atonement is expressed in scriptures, I can't recommend this book enough. Get it from the library, or just buy it. I guarantee you'll find some fascinating insights there.

At least head over to amazon and click on the preview to see the Table of Contents. It's fascinating.

Edited May 10, 2012 by David T

[zerinus]

One of the most influential books I've read on the subject is the book Options on Atonement in Christian thought, by Stephen Finlan. Highly, HIGHLY recommend this book.

It details all the metaphors/models used to explain Atonement in the Bible, gives historical background and precedent for them, , and notes how even within some of the models themselves, there's some self-contradition and mixed-metaphors going on (especially in Paul's writings).

It's a fascinating study on why and how certain models were used to explain the Atonement to particular audiences, and expresses how it is only natural to evolve and update the metaphors to current understanding. There's a VERY LDS-esque sugestion at the end that the future of Atonement theology metaphor may lie in the expression in terms of the Family Relationship and Dynamic, but that an unwillingness to move beyond the biblical metaphor is what holds many back, with an expression for a new revelatory evolution that would allow for the transition.

I don't believe any Atonement theory needs to account for every model used to explain it to a particular audience in the already existing scriptures.

While not an LDS-authored book, this has opened up new readings and approaches to the LDS-specific canon, and amazingly placed the LDS Church in a POWERFUL place to fulfil the needed evolution and expression of Atonement metaphor. We're already very much on the way to it, IMO.

Really, no matter how much you may already thin kyou know about how Atonement is expressed in scriptures, I can't recommend this book enough. Get it from the library, or just buy it. I guarantee you'll find some fascinating insights there.

At least head over to amazon and click on the preview to see the Table of Contents. It's fascinating.

Don't you think it is a bit much asking people to read a whole book just to debate you on the Internet?

[Calm]

I think he was asking people to read the book because it is a good book and worthwhile for them to invest the time and money in, not for the purpose of simply debating him on the internet.

[zerinus]

I think he was asking people to read the book because it is a good book and worthwhile for them to invest the time and money in, not for the purpose of simply debating him on the internet.

Well, the purpose of the board is to debate. I am more interested in his response to previous posters. His response seems to be, "Go read the book!" Not a very promising way to debate I should think.

[Calm]

Well, the purpose of the board is to debate.

Also to dialogue. There are many, many threads that are just about sharing information including good books to read.

[David T]

Well, the purpose of the board is to debate. I am more interested in his response to previous posters. His response seems to be, "Go read the book!" Not a very promising way to debate I should think.

No, the purpose of the board is to discuss, and to participate in dialogue, not to 'score points', or to 'be right'. The more information one has, the more one can discuss, and the more profitable dialogue can often be. I have no interest in winning any supposed debate. I am interested in making known more information that those who who acknowledge they may not know it all on a subject may find of interest, and may temper their assumptions.

Edited May 10, 2012 by David T

[Vance]

Doesn't it seem that if God cannot forgive sin without the mediation of Jesus Christ satisfying the demands of justice, then Good must be something apart from God?

I don't have a problem with that being a possibility.

[zerinus]

No, the purpose of the board is to discuss, and to participate in dialogue, not to 'score points', or to 'be right'. The more information one has, the more one can discuss, and the more profitable dialogue can often be. I have no interest in winning any supposed debate. I am interested in making known more information that those who who acknowledge they may not know it all on a subject may find of interest, and may temper their assumptions.

I don't think that Messenger was trying to score points either. He was replying to your previous post, which you don't seem willing to justify. Odd, I should think.

[zerinus]

Also to dialogue. There are many, many threads that are just about sharing information including good books to read.

Not much of a dialogue if one side's response is, "Read a book". I think I would call that a monologue!

[David T]

I don't think that Messenger was trying to score points either. He was replying to your previous post, which you don't seem willing to justify. Odd, I should think.

I didn't say anything about Messenger scoring points. I was responding to your insistence that this must be viewed as a debate.

I'm not interested in refuting or justifying every disagreement I have on this board. There are some topics that extended works are more helpful in explaining a view than quickly written rejoinders. I don't always have the time to go in depth as I would like, and am aware of a very helpful source that those interested in the topic may also find useful in understanding how I approach these things.

[David T]

Not much of a dialogue if one side's response is, "Read a book". I think I would call that a monologue!

I have been very grateful for individuals who recommended a book, and explained what it sets out, and explained why it was helpful for them. While it may have temporarily paused that strand of the dialogue, it was able to be resumed later on when we had both read and pondered the material - the dialogue then was much more rich and nuanced, and productive.

I'm not in this to 'beat' someone, or to prove people wrong. I'm in this to learn, and to share what I've learned, and to refine my understanding of things. Books have gone a long way in refining my understanding of things, and I am grateful for good recommendations of books on a topic I am interested in that challenge and enhance my understanding of a subject. I didn't think recommending a good book on the topic of this thread would be viewed as offensive or 'odd' or as conceding ignorance to anyone.

Edited May 10, 2012 by David T

[zerinus]

I didn't say anything about Messenger scoring points. I was responding to your insistence that this must be viewed as a debate.

Debat, dialogue, discussion, all amounts to the same thing to me. If I had the time to post the following message, I would try to find the time to justify it--other than telling people to go and read a book.

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.

Edited May 10, 2012 by zerinus

[David T]

Zerinus, the replies I saw were more assertions that it just is, appeals to authority, and individuals quoting others teaching the model. What was said in response didn't make the model, or those asserting it, make any more practical sense to me. I expressed, with commentary, a title that assisted in my appreciation of the Atonement, and why and how different models were presented, and offered it up.

Take it or leave it. I'm done defending my recommendation of a book to you.

Edited May 10, 2012 by David T

[zerinus]

Zerinus, the replies I saw were more assertions that it just is, appeals to authority, and individuals quoting others teaching the model. What was said in response didn't make the model, or those asserting it, make any more practical sense to me. I expressed, with commentary, a title that assisted in my appreciation of the Atonement, and why and how different models were presented, and offered it up.

Take it or leave it. I'm done defending my recommendation of a book to you.

I suppose there is more than one way of getting out of an awkward situation. Good luck with your posts.

Edited May 10, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

Can you tell me what is the basis of that claim? Do you have a statement from a General Authority, something published in a Church manual or handbook, or in the standard works that in your opinion establishes that as a doctrine of Mormonism? I am not personally aware of such a statement; and establishing the truth of that claim seems to me must be the starting point before your question can be discussed.

Alma 42

plan of ^bredemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would ^ccease to be God.

And then we have:

Mormon 9:19miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he ^bchangeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

So clearly in the first quote, the idea is that God must conform to Justice or he would cease to be God. God therefore, according to ONE interpretation of these scriptures, God cannot change AND does not create "justice" but must conform to it.

Of course most sectarian Christians have the same problem but do not recognize it- they don't even ask the question of what would happen if God did something unjust or bad.

As usual, we answer questions others don't even ask.

Edit: For some reason cut and paste from LDS org scriptures does not work without extra work on formatting- but at least you have the fragments of the scriptures- I would encourage you to look them up.

Edited May 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I've got an idea.

Let's start a thread on the "purpose" of this forum- as if there is ONE, - good luck with that position- and discuss the OP!

Strange idea I know, but what the heck?!

[Mudcat]

Can you tell me what is the basis of that claim? Do you have a statement from a General Authority, something published in a Church manual or handbook, or in the standard works that in your opinion establishes that as a doctrine of Mormonism? I am not personally aware of such a statement; and establishing the truth of that claim seems to me must be the starting point before your question can be discussed.

Anecdotal. Conversations with LDS family and friends over the years, including here. I dunno of any formal stuff on it. Maybe there is some.

In general I think it's likely from taking the premise of Snow's couplet, "As man is, God..." and applying reasonable logic to it.

edit add -

@mfbukowski - thanks for the BoM citations on the subject, didn't read your quote till after I posted a reply to Z.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Mudcat

[zerinus]

So clearly in the first quote, the idea is that God must conform to Justice or he would cease to be God. God therefore, according to ONE interpretation of these scriptures, God cannot change AND does not create "justice" but must conform to it.

The fact that God has to conform to the principle of justice does not necessitate that He should not have created that standard of justice in the first place. There are many passages of scripture that teach that God is just, that He conforms to the principles of justice.

Edited May 10, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Anecdotal. Conversations with LDS family and friends over the years, including here. I dunno of any formal stuff on it. Maybe there is some.

In general I think it's likely from taking the premise of Snow's couplet, "As man is, God..." and applying reasonable logic to it.

edit add -

@mfbukowski - thanks for the BoM citations on the subject, didn't read your quote till after I posted a reply to Z.

I am not aware of any scripture that unambiguously teaches that doctrine; and I am not aware of any teaching by a General Authority that has unambiguously commented on that particular doctrine.