How Can God Forgive Sin?

[David T]

If I'm reading you right, your position merely changes the law to something like "If someone is sincere enough (among possibly other options), God can wave the penalty." There is no need for an atonement in order for God to forgive, because the law you believe He uses already provides for mercy. Is that right?

No. My position is that there isn't an imposed penalty to be waived. There are inevitable results of actions and desires that serve as obstacles to fulfilling our potential, and cause us to either stand still, or head in another direction. This could be seen as a penalty - but it's not something that is removed, it's something that is walked away from, but that without the draw of the Atonement, tends to work like a whirlpool constantly drawing us back into destructive patterns. As I see it, The Atonement is the beacon (ensign?) that, when understood as the expression of God's love, and when we cling to it, powerfully draws us back towards the true desire and goal of God for us. Mercy isn't something that needs to be provided for - it's simply an inherent characteristic of God. The Atonement is an expression of grace and mercy. It's letting us know that God already loves us, and forgiveness is already ours - we just need to acknowledge, recognize, and accept it to be free. We will then be motivated and empowered to progress according to God's designs and expressed direction.

Edited May 12, 2012 by David T

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm out of rep points, but your posts in this thread have been fantastic, David T. Well, well said.

[David T]

I admit that a model is only as useful as the purpose for which it is created. For you, a model of the atonement is meant to help you repent.

For me, the model I want is the one which helps me understand eternity and God better. To understand the truth of the matter.

I don't necessarily measure the truth of a proposition by whether it ignites a desire in me. I'm sure I could go to just about *any* church and feel a desire to repent. I could listen to books on tape and feel a desire to change my life in certain ways. But I want more than that.

Of course I desire a model that helps me understand God better. One way I judge the effectiveness in doing that is through its fruits in me, which I interpret as the result of feeling and applying resonating truth. Of course that's subjective.

Edited May 12, 2012 by David T

[David T]

For example, one can use the laws of physics and gravity to fall, or to fly. When flying, and there's a malfunction, you don't fall because you 'broke' the Law of Gravity - you just weren't able to properly apply the resources to harness what is understood by the other laws. Falling isn't a penalty, or a punishment. it's the natural result, and the default.

[mfbukowski]

For me its more simple. God is not above the law. In my opinion, there are other Gods that have been God before he was. The law is in him and therefore the law works through him. Just as we understand and can define what is right and wrong without the need for a thousands of commandments. We simply know what to do, because we understand the law. And when we deviate from this law, we lose our power in the law.

But, I agree with you. A nice perspective you have.

I don't disagree with you either. The reason I kind of like the view I took in that post was that as a theory it does not rely on a King Follette view of preceding Gods- although I am not opposed to that either.

I think the view I espoused above would be one that more classical Christians might find a bit more appealing than the King Follette approach, and yet it is compatible with KF, because after all, each "generation" of Gods may be able to start over from scratch for all we know. On the other hand, those who are disposed to view God as transcendent may like the idea that God voluntarily "gave it up" to be a loving Father.

[Zeta-Flux]

No. My position is that there isn't an imposed penalty to be waived. There are inevitable results of actions and desires that serve as obstacles to fulfilling our potential, and cause us to either stand still, or head in another direction. This could be seen as a penalty - but it's not something that is removed, it's something that is walked away from, but that without the draw of the Atonement, tends to work like a whirlpool constantly drawing us back into destructive patterns. As I see it, The Atonement is the beacon (ensign?) that, when understood as the expression of God's love, and when we cling to it, powerfully draws us back towards the true desire and goal of God for us. Mercy isn't something that needs to be provided for - it's simply an inherent characteristic of God. The Atonement is an expression of grace and mercy. It's letting us know that God already loves us, and forgiveness is already ours - we just need to acknowledge, recognize, and accept it to be free. We will then be motivated and empowered to progress according to God's designs and expressed direction.

Okay let me try again. Your position is that there is no law except cause and effect. This was not imposed, or even agreed upon, it simply is.

If this is correct, what prevents God from simply overriding the effects of our choices?

[Messenger]

Let me add one more thing - the Atonment, on my view, allows all the other intelligences access to the full experience of mortality - because they are united with Christ and know from him of his experiences and thus can they have compassion upon us when we repent. In this way too is Christ the intercessionary or the mediator between us and the Heavens.

Anyways, I look forward to seeing what else you have to say upon the topic!

Log,

The only thing else that I thought about that came to mind with your post above is that the intelligences we have spoken about seem to rule this universe and certainly multiple domains within it. For example, the spirit world, telestial, terrestrial and celestial. My own comment eludes to the possibility of completely different universes created on a different set of laws, at least laws of nature. Whether these intelligences are trans-universal or limited to our own with all its domains is perhaps something to think about further. However, what I think is even more thought worthy is whether their role in our universe can be permanent or not. Of course we know that at some point the intelligences are probably organized by God in same manner and are born to him spiritually thus entering into the plan of salvation. But I wonder if some of them, at least to a smaller or larger degree, govern the universe on a permanent basis. Further, if we settle on this theory of intelligences that are the guardians of law, experts in their own field, and are not subject to God or God's, it would seem a more power sharing arrangement between God, Intelligences, and ourselves (to a much smaller degree). In other words, they are a bit like the Judicial system. And I suppose that would make God sort of like the Police Chief (respectfully). If so, that would mean that God has respect for Intelligences and vis versa - which seems to fit our priesthood when we command the elements to move, change, or reshape (even forgive) because they have respect for Christ. Every time my mind goes down this path I start thinking of Star Wars with reference to midi-chlorians (haha)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7mlRDyA5Y

[mfbukowski]

Every time my mind goes down this path I start thinking of Star Wars with reference to midi-chlorians (haha)

Skousen (is he still alive?) should be getting royalties on all those movies!

[Log]

Of course we know that at some point the intelligences are probably organized by God in same manner and are born to him spiritually thus entering into the plan of salvation. But I wonder if some of them, at least to a smaller or larger degree, govern the universe on a permanent basis.

Well, I'm going to say it is my opinion that they do not - at least, not independently of the Priesthood (Godhood?) of God. It is my view that should God cease to be God, the order he has ordained would return to chaos. I suppose we may differ on that point.

However, let me develop my thesis a bit further.

I think God created intelligences as individual, functioning beings with their emotional weightings - he caused that intelligences should feel and value what they feel and value (meaning, their default states).

It is logically possible that God might have chosen to create a race of sadists, and a corresponding race of masochists, for example. However, that appears to be a kind of creation which would seem to be devoid of a purpose and point.

Instead, he created male and female (or do I repeat myself?), possibly divided from single primordial beings. These genders are distinct at their core, with differing emotional and value weighting, the males being by design more aggressive and individualistic, and the females more submissive and communalistic, yet when joined again in their essences, eternally stable as one divine being. Think of the Liahona in this context - a single being, alone, can never be assured of its stability, just as one pointer in the compass would be insufficient to demonstrate that the compass was working: it required the two spindles to be united in pointing the direction to know if it functioned.

God instituted the beings' sense of justice / injustice, equity / unfairness, care / harm, loyalty / betrayal, and so forth, again with slightly different weightings between the genders.

It is further my thought that as the intelligences developed and interacted, their emotional and valuation weightings took on unique characteristics for each individual. Some valuations were strengthened, and others vitiated, through interactions with each other. We became truly unique individuals.

Thus, God set in motion the machinery of justice, of mercy, the requirements of the plan of salvation, and so forth, and it is yet outside of him - because we are what he made of us, and he must abide those conditions which he impressed upon us with an eye to make us equal in might, knowledge, and virtue with himself - for his honor is his power: he is obeyed because he abides his own law to perfection, and we can see this law is the sole way a society of equals may abide eternally.

Again, this is all speculation, and, again, while I can't put all my thoughts out there, I hope this catches someone's imagination.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Again, this is all speculation, and, again, while I can't put all my thoughts out there, I hope this catches someone's imagination.

I think you are right on the money

Good to see you here!

[Log]

I think you are right on the money

I accept rep points!

[zerinus]

I met Cleon Skousen when I went to BYU in the 70s. I attended one of his lectures. I was never impressed by what he taught or wrote. A bunch of false doctrines it seemed to me than and now. I don’t think that God is God by means of the “democratic vote of the intelligences”. His theory of the “intelligences” appeared to be a big thing with him at that time, and he was keen to promote it at every opportunity.

Judging by what I recall from his lecture, however, the doctrine did not appear to be his own invention. It appeared to be something that had been taught in the Church earlier on, which he seemed determined to revive. I have no idea who may have been the original inventor of it. You may have to search the Journal of Discourses to discover who may have taught it before. I am guessing, however, that it may have originated from the interpretation of the passages in the Book of Mormon, which teach that if God were to be unjust, He would “cease to be God” (Alma 42:13, 22, 25; Mormon 9:19). The interesting question is, how would God cease to be God? Who would deprive Him of His power? Would the “intelligences” vote Him out? How could they? If He is omnipotent and omniscient already, could He not annihilate them all in one instance! And who would look after His estate after He was gone?

Do we have an example of a god having gone awry? Was Satan an example of a god who went astray? According to the scriptures, Jesus had acquired divine status in the pre-existence; and Satan was pretty close. Could it be that he had also achieved divine status before he fell? If so, how did he fall? Did the “intelligences” vote him out, or was he stripped of his power in some other way?

Joseph Smith in his Lectures on Faith expands on the idea of God’s divine power, and teaches that if Jehovah were to “change” in any way from being the kind of Being that He already is, He would immediately lose all His divine power—implying that there are unalterable laws in operation in the universe what would prevent an unjust being occupying the status of Deity. It is physically impossible to have an evil Deity. He may become the deity of the hellish crew, but not the Deity of universal creation as we know it to be. And I don’t think it has anything to do with “intelligences” voting Him in or out of office!

[Messenger]

I accept rep points!

Dont forget to give them too!

[Messenger]

I accept rep points!

More thoughts this morning when I woke up ......

I was thinking about our discussion regarding intelligences, and your point that perhaps they all (we) came from them rather than my thought that some of them stay. So, if we all were spiritually born from them, and they are the rulers of right and wrong in the universe, could this be why we all have an inherent knowledge of right and wrong (which the church describes as the light of Christ)?

[Messenger]

Skousen (is he still alive?)

Apparently he died January 9, 2006 (aged 92)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleon_Skousen

[Log]

More thoughts this morning when I woke up ......

I was thinking about our discussion regarding intelligences, and your point that perhaps they all (we) came from them rather than my thought that some of them stay. So, if we all were spiritually born from them, and they are the rulers of right and wrong in the universe, could this be why we all have an inherent knowledge of right and wrong (which the church describes as the light of Christ)?

[opinion]

I don't agree that they ARE the rulers of right and wrong in the universe - as I said above, I believe God crafted them (us and the others) with their propensities to value and feel what they value and feel, and those propensities are the source of right and wrong. It is, and always has been, subjective in that sense - there is no objective "justice" like a Pit of Sarlaac into which recalcitrant sinners are tossed, but there also is no other system of morality, logically speaking, that a society of eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, indwelling equals can exist on, so it is, in that sense, objective.

I don't know enough about what the light of Christ is to be able to say explicitly how it fits in.

[/opinion]

It looks to me like we've got different cosmologies.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[David T]

Okay let me try again. Your position is that there is no law except cause and effect. This was not imposed, or even agreed upon, it simply is.

If this is correct, what prevents God from simply overriding the effects of our choices?

The same thing that kept the plan traditionally impuned to Satan from working - it simply wouldn't have worked - or been possible - to achieve the end goal of Progression.

Let's take for an example that God wants us all to be proficient in Calculus. If, when we begin, we are failing elementary school arithmetic, and keep failing addition and subtraction tests, you're asking what prevents God from ignoring the real results of our inability to learn, and advance them to Algebra anyway. Sure, they've moved forward. But have they progressed? No! they'll be even more over their heads. And now, would it be an an act of grace to give them A's on all the algebra tests, and then to plop them into Calculus? Sounds like hell, to me. God doesn't want us to know the answers, he wants us to know from our experience how to arrive at the answers, which prepares us for other experiences where we would be able to act independently down the road.

Within the Church, Standards and Guidelines and Covenants and Ordinances are presented that serve as tutors to assist us in progressing at a do-it-yourself rate, as we become truly converted to and comprehend and live the overarching Laws of Progression. Church preparedness standards (often called one's 'Worthiness' status, although I hate that name) are a low-level cycle of applied principles whose purpose serves to help prepare us to advance to learn more about the Laws of Progression.

As I see it, Jesus Christ is the example. His life is the goal. His life is the textbook. His Love is the motivating factor that gets us on the track in the first place, and the covenants give us signposts of hope, as well as very real promises of assurance that as we progress, our missteps in the past won't be part of any cumulative GPA when it comes down to Graduation Time. God won't care in the end how many times we may have repeated Third Grade Math. God looks at where we currently are, and what we are becomming, not individual things (good or bad) we did that are checked off on a list somewhere. This is how I see it.

God won't keep us from falling on the way, but when it comes to Graduation time, he won't be printing out a paper pointing out all the times you fell, or how long it took you to pass 7th Grade. He'll be too busy embracing you with Joy as to who you have become.

Edited May 14, 2012 by David T

[Zeta-Flux]

David T,

I completely agree with what you said.

Now consider the implications of what you just said. You have put limits on God's ability to forgive. He cannot do it when, in effect, the forgiveness would not accomplish what God wants accomplished. Also consider this wise statement you made: "As I see it, Jesus Christ is the example. His life is the goal. His life is the textbook. His Love is the motivating factor that gets us on the track in the first place, and the covenants give us signposts of hope, as well as very real promises of assurance that as we progress, our missteps in the past won't be part of any cumulative GPA when it comes down to Graduation Time."

It seems to me that if you put those two things together, it was necessary for Christ to suffer, otherwise the atonement would not have accomplished what it was meant to do. You have thus made the atonement an act which requires suffering to meet the demands of our sinful state. If justice is fulfilling the law, and the law is simply God's love in commandments meant to exalt us, then is not your theory really one and the same as Elder Packer's?

By the way, there is no "cumulative GPA" in the model he espouses. The wage of sin is death. It doesn't matter if it is one sin or a million and one. Christ undoes death and fixes all wrongs, heals all sorrows, has compassion on us all. The guilt we feel for hurting others and ourselves can truly and completely be removed because Christ will and does heal those wounds we inflicted.

What I see Elder Packer emphasizing is Christ's abilities to right wrongs (pay the price if you will). Yes, you are right that Christ's love is a motivating guide. His life is a textbook. But above that, Christ's not only promises that missteps won't be cumulatively counted against us, but that we can feel real peace because Christ will heal those wounds we cause, if we and others will let Him. The atonement was not simply an act of example, but an act which reaches out to us with the balm of peace.

I honestly could not stand in God's presence if I thought for a single instance that I had irrevocably harmed another soul. Whether you think of that as a "price" or an "effect" or whatever, it had to be removed. Christ offers healing and exaltation and forgiveness.

[David T]

Now consider the implications of what you just said. You have put limits on God's ability to forgive. He cannot do it when, in effect, the forgiveness would not accomplish what God wants accomplished.

A teacher isn't being unforgiving when they are marking grades. Ideally, they are not giving you a grade, they are telling you, by means of a letter symbol, where you currently already are. Wrong answers aren't things to be forgiven, they are simply indicators of lessons that haven't been internalized and learned yet. When lessons aren't learned, advancement is not helpful, or beneficial.

That's like saying I'm choosing not to forgive my toddler for falling down. Of course I'm not forgiving them - it's not something that requires forgiveness. I will do what I can to show that I love them and to make sure that they're learning what they need to know to be confident walkers and runners, but there's no need to forgive them for tripping along that journey.

I view as at each new level of comprehension, the previous records of the missteps on the way are not even on the record - for they are not relevant anymore. Once you're baptized, and enter into a Covenant to join with the Savior, everything up to that point is off the record. It's a reassurance and promise to me that I won't be called to task - by God - for what happened prior to that point. I view each covenant and promise as that degree of reassurance - it's not that God forgives me anew, it's given me a renewed commitment that from this point on, I am a new creature, and am still on the path of becoming. My past missteps do not matter. It's a new day, and I'm further along than I was before, and my past failings aren't significant when it comes to how God sees me.

Again, I see the times where we generally say, "God has forgiven us" to mean, "God has reassured us that we are forgiven." It's more as a token gesture of reassurance to let us move on, than something God is withholding.

It seems to me that if you put those two things together, it was necessary for Christ to suffer, otherwise the atonement would not have accomplished what it was meant to do. You have thus made the atonement an act which requires suffering to meet the demands of our sinful state. If justice is fulfilling the law, and the law is simply God's love in commandments meant to exalt us, then is not your theory really one and the same as Elder Packer's?

Not really, because Elder Packer's is framed very much in terms of quantity, and subservience. The debt isn't erased, there's just refinancing going on. We become Christ's purchased (peculiar) slaves (which, I recognize, is in line with the way Paul expressed it), rather than the slave of JUSTICE, to whom 'token payments' were able to be made. Justice is receiving the exact payment we owed, paid for by our Master.

I don't deny this can be a powerful metaphor, but the quantifying of sins as actual payment rubs me very much the wrong way.

I don't feel we become Christ's slaves, we become his family. I don't think Jesus handed over a payment to Justice with his death - what He did was show that he was willing to give up everything to prove and demonstrate the extent of God's love for us, and he was trustworthy. He taught the message of love and peace and healing even in the face of death threats - threats that were eventually fulfilled. He cared more about serving than comfort and riches and popularity. A key promise was that there will be peace, that wickedness accomplished would not be permanent.

That while we may have done things in the past that hurt others, trust Him - all will be made right, and that those you harmed will forgive you. God already has.

When we Trust God completely, with the life and murder of Jesus - the very image of God in the world - as a token of the unrelenting faithfulness to fulfill his Word, we can be removed of the effects of guilt. But then we need to move forward, to fulfill that promise for others - be the ones developing charity to forgive those who harmed you so they can have the joy of forgiveness that you have been promised.

Yes, you are right that Christ's love is a motivating guide. His life is a textbook. But above that, Christ's not only promises that missteps won't be cumulatively counted against us, but that we can feel real peace because Christ will heal those wounds we cause, if we and others will let Him. The atonement was not simply an act of example, but an act which reaches out to us with the balm of peace.

I honestly could not stand in God's presence if I thought for a single instance that I had irrevocably harmed another soul. Whether you think of that as a "price" or an "effect" or whatever, it had to be removed. Christ offers healing and exaltation and forgiveness.

Hopefully what I said above expresses how I currently understand - and agree with - these comments you just presented.

The main point is I don't think any outside force or law is being 'satisfied' or 'paid' - we are being made aware that the reason we should trust God is because He loved us first. I see it as our own inability to progress and believe we are forgiven and worthy and able to progress is an internal stumbling block that is shattered with comprehension of the motivation behind Atonement.

Edited May 14, 2012 by David T

[zerinus]

So in the midst of this discussion, what happened to all the scriptural talk about the importance of the “law”?

D&C 88:

21 And they who are not sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ, must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom.

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.

35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

Moroni 8:

24 Behold, my son, . . . repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

What are we to make of Paul’s assertion that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22); and Jesus’ declaration that “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28)? And “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4; also James 2:9; Mosiah 2:33).

[David T]

So in the midst of this discussion, what happened to all the scriptural talk about the importance of the “law”?

D&C 88

It's stating a simple truth. If you don't work within the established system, you don't advance beyond it. If someone doesn't understand, learn about, and comply with the laws of physics, you'll never make an airplane and escape the pull of gravity. Not because gravity has a by-necessity permanent hold on anyone - but because someone wasn't willing to learn and abide the laws that would assist in naturally overcome the downward pull.

Moroni 8:

<snip>

Again, the 'curse of the law' are the natural limitations of those who do not work in accordance with them. Like the famous saying - one cannot break the Law, but one can break oneself against them. Christ gives what is necessary to overcome the natural limitations, to work within the Laws, rather than be held back because of constantly 'breaking oneself against them.

What are we to make of Paul’s assertion that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22);

The writer of Hebrews was using the symbols and understanding and language of the priestly sacrifices and applying it to Jesus. It was highly important rhetoric in expressing to the Christian Community that the practice of sacrifice was not to be continued.

and Jesus’ declaration that “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28)?

There's actually some complicated history in attributing this passage to Jesus. While the earlier version in Mark reads, "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." (Mark 14:24, NRSV), speaking only of the symbol of ratifying a covenant. Mark does contain a phrase involving remission of sins, but not in relationship to the eucharist, but in relation to Baptism. The problem is, it's associated with the Baptism Jesus received - which implied that Jesus submitted to a remission of sins. (see my blog post on this subject here: Jesus' First Vision)

As John Meier wrote in A Marginal Jew: Volume 2 - Mentor, Message, and Miracles (p 53)

'It is symptomatic that, in the second generation of the gospel tradition, Matthew found the phrase "unto the remission of sins" offensive as a description of John's baptism and transferred it to the blood of Christ symbolized in the wine at the Last Supper (Matt 3:1-2,11; cf. 26:28). Notice: When Matthew (or the liturgical tradition of his church before him) decided to transfer the phrase, he attached it not to Christian baptism but to the eucharist.'

And “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4;also James 2:9; Mosiah 2:33).

Which, as you see above, I would find in harmony conceptually with my expression. It is 'crossing' the Law, or in other words, breaking oneself against it. It has natural consequences that the Lord desires for us to overcome - and he knows the way.

Edited May 15, 2012 by David T

[Zeta-Flux]

A teacher isn't being unforgiving when they are marking grades. Ideally, they are not giving you a grade, they are telling you, by means of a letter symbol, where you currently already are. Wrong answers aren't things to be forgiven, they are simply indicators of lessons that haven't been internalized and learned yet. When lessons aren't learned, advancement is not helpful, or beneficial.

That's like saying I'm choosing not to forgive my toddler for falling down. Of course I'm not forgiving them - it's not something that requires forgiveness. I will do what I can to show that I love them and to make sure that they're learning what they need to know to be confident walkers and runners, but there's no need to forgive them for tripping along that journey.

I view as at each new level of comprehension, the previous records of the missteps on the way are not even on the record - for they are not relevant anymore. Once you're baptized, and enter into a Covenant to join with the Savior, everything up to that point is off the record. It's a reassurance and promise to me that I won't be called to task - by God - for what happened prior to that point. I view each covenant and promise as that degree of reassurance - it's not that God forgives me anew, it's given me a renewed commitment that from this point on, I am a new creature, and am still on the path of becoming. My past missteps do not matter. It's a new day, and I'm further along than I was before, and my past failings aren't significant when it comes to how God sees me.

Again, I see the times where we generally say, "God has forgiven us" to mean, "God has reassured us that we are forgiven." It's more as a token gesture of reassurance to let us move on, than something God is withholding.

Yes, of course, the grading can be viewed as a simple record of what one has done. Being a teacher myself, and having had a large number of different students, let me extend your analogy.

The classroom of life is not a sterile environment. It is one where we can interact with the teacher, interact with the students, be limited by our circumstances in some measure and also be able to rise above what we expected. In other words, it is not an internet course, but is very much like a real college course.

There are students who fall down through no fault of their own. They get sick, or their parents die, or their fiance calls off an engagement, and I extend mercy to them. I'm not "forgiving them" for wrong-doing, but I do help them through the bad consequences of others choices and unfortunate circumstances. Then there are the students who do fall down through their own choice. They are not like the toddler in your story. They do not accidentally stumble and fall. They fling themselves to the floor. They are disruptive and an impediment to other students. Their actions have real consequences for others.

Let's say, for example, Billy incessantly torments Jenny. Any time he is near, Jenny suffers. I, being a human teacher, cannot erase that suffering and heal those wounds. It would be completely unfair of me to let Billy back into the classroom because of the effect it would have on Jenny. But Christ is different than I am. I have to keep a record of the missteps because there are real consequences for both Billy and others that have to be taken into account. Christ can promise they will be wiped away and of no relevance because He can make us new creatures.

But that is not all. Christ loves Billy so much that, as the perfect teacher, He showed Billy through His own suffering exactly what Billy would suffer if he wouldn't repent. (D&C 19)

Not really, because Elder Packer's is framed very much in terms of quantity, and subservience. The debt isn't erased, there's just refinancing going on. We become Christ's purchased (peculiar) slaves (which, I recognize, is in line with the way Paul expressed it), rather than the slave of JUSTICE, to whom 'token payments' were able to be made. Justice is receiving the exact payment we owed, paid for by our Master.

I don't deny this can be a powerful metaphor, but the quantifying of sins as actual payment rubs me very much the wrong way.

Which I still don't understand. To grace we are debtors. Think of all the bad things you have done. Think of every effect of those bad actions, perpetuated through all eternity. Christ rights all of those wrongs. He is our master. But the greatest master there is. One who also adopts us into sonship.

I don't feel we become Christ's slaves, we become his family.

This is a false dichotomy. Just as Christ, the perfect son, submitted His will to the Father, so too we must be willing to submit ourselves to Christ. When we do that, when we put ourselves at His mercy, He rewards us with the greatest gift there is--an inheritance in His family.

I don't think Jesus handed over a payment to Justice with his death...

Why not? And is He not continuing to pay the price for your sins as He heals the hearts you have broken?

- what He did was show that he was willing to give up everything to prove and demonstrate the extent of God's love for us, and he was trustworthy. He taught the message of love and peace and healing even in the face of death threats - threats that were eventually fulfilled. He cared more about serving than comfort and riches and popularity. A key promise was that there will be peace, that wickedness accomplished would not be permanent.

He did that, and more. He not only showed He was willing to give up everything to prove God's love. He actually went through with it. He gave up everything, and went through hell, to show us what we would have to go through if we don't repent. (Again see D&C 19.) He is the perfect exemplar.

But that is not all. He also took upon Himself all of our pains so that He could comfort us and heal us.

But that is not all.

That while we may have done things in the past that hurt others, trust Him - all will be made right, and that those you harmed will forgive you. God already has.

When we Trust God completely, with the life and murder of Jesus - the very image of God in the world - as a token of the unrelenting faithfulness to fulfill his Word, we can be removed of the effects of guilt. But then we need to move forward, to fulfill that promise for others - be the ones developing charity to forgive those who harmed you so they can have the joy of forgiveness that you have been promised.

And that is the point of Elder Packer's analogy. All will be made right because Christ will right it. We cannot. We cannot remove the effects of sin, but Christ can.

Hopefully what I said above expresses how I currently understand - and agree with - these comments you just presented.

The main point is I don't think any outside force or law is being 'satisfied' or 'paid' - we are being made aware that the reason we should trust God is because He loved us first. I see it as our own inability to progress and believe we are forgiven and worthy and able to progress is an internal stumbling block that is shattered with comprehension of the motivation behind Atonement.

"Outside force or law"? You said it yourself. There are consequences to our choices. If you torment Jenny in the classroom of life, you can't fix that. But you can trust in your redeemer, your Savior, your master, your friend, and ultimately your Father through the covenant, to comfort her and right those wrongs. To admit you back into the classroom if you will but return (as you say, the offer has ALREADY been made) but also make it good for both you and her to be there. Edited May 15, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[David T]

Then there are the students who do fall down through their own choice. They are not like the toddler in your story. They do not accidentally stumble and fall. They fling themselves to the floor. They are disruptive and an impediment to other students. Their actions have real consequences for others.

This behavior is accomplished because something in the child's experience leads them to believe this is somehow correct, and is for their better good. From God's perspective, this is another case where assistance is required, and not forgiveness from him. The forgiveness that is needed is from a) the individual themself, and b) the individuals who suffered because of the actions of the individual. My perspective is that God doesn't hold grudges, but he won't drag someone through the steps needed to progress if they don't desire it, either.

Let's say, for example, Billy incessantly torments Jenny. Any time he is near, Jenny suffers. I, being a human teacher, cannot erase that suffering and heal those wounds. It would be completely unfair of me to let Billy back into the classroom because of the effect it would have on Jenny. But Christ is different than I am. I have to keep a record of the missteps because there are real consequences for both Billy and others that have to be taken into account. Christ can promise they will be wiped away and of no relevance because He can make us new creatures.

What's fascinating is that when injuring an individual, they have placed their peace in that individual's hands. They will not be able to have full peace until they are assured that they will be forgiven by that individual. At times, that forgiveness is known and understood sooner rather than later. In other cases, such as when distance or death removes communication, one needs rely on the assurance of the Savior that they will be forgiven by those who they injured.

All will be made right because Christ will right it. We cannot. We cannot remove the effects of sin, but Christ can.

I'd like to nuance that a bit, to make clear my current understanding. All will be made right because Christ's love, when understood, will draw the inhabitants of the world into Christ-like charity. This charity working through all of God's children will make all things right. On our own, we would not remove the effect of sin, but Jesus facilitates this restoration. We love God, because he loved us first. And then we love all, because we love God. I see that as the key reason we are all (male and female) called to be Christs, Saviors. This is actually a key meaning I find in the presentation of the Endowment. Of course, YMMV.

All of this I feel comfortable and completely honest with expressing in the shorthand, "Jesus died for my sins". Or, "through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." - the type of discussion on these boards, however, requests a more nuanced answer by what I mean when I affirm this credo

[Zeta-Flux]

This behavior is accomplished because something in the child's experience leads them to believe this is somehow correct, and is for their better good.

No. It isn't. It is willful evil, done by an individual who knew better.

If one of my students bullied another it would not be an accident of experience. It would be willful disobedience to the light of Christ (assuming the person wasn't a pyschopath, or mentally unaccountable, etc...).

We are accountable for our actions and can't (in many cases) blame the universe for not providing us the right experiences to know better.

From God's perspective, this is another case where assistance is required, and not forgiveness from him.

Another false dichotomy. Assistance is needed, but so is forgiveness. I know. So does anyone who has gone through the repentance process. We regret our actions and wish to have the negative effects fixed.

If you honestly have never done anything you believed was wrong at the time, and only have been mistaken in what you thought was right, I envy you.

The forgiveness that is needed is from a) the individual themself, and b) the individuals who suffered because of the actions of the individual. My perspective is that God doesn't hold grudges, but he won't drag someone through the steps needed to progress if they don't desire it, either.

Another false dichotomy. It has nothing to do with "grudges".

It seems to me that you are using a nonstandard definition of "forgive". If the teacher lets you back into the school he has forgiven you. You have been granted a pardon for your previous acts. The teacher cannot let you in (i.e. cannot forgive you) until you make a sincere effort to obey the rules of the classroom.

He may want to let you back in, and offer the invitation on easy conditions, but if you don't meet those conditions He cannot (yet) forgive you.

I'd like to nuance that a bit, to make clear my current understanding. All will be made right because Christ's love, when understood, will draw the inhabitants of the world into Christ-like charity. This charity working through all of God's children will make all things right. On our own, we would not remove the effect of sin, but Jesus facilitates this restoration. We love God, because he loved us first. And then we love all, because we love God. I see that as the key reason we are all (male and female) called to be Christs, Saviors. This is actually a key meaning I find in the presentation of the Endowment. Of course, YMMV.

All of this I feel comfortable and completely honest with expressing in the shorthand, "Jesus died for my sins". Or, "through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." - the type of discussion on these boards, however, requests a more nuanced answer by what I mean when I affirm this credo

That is part of how everything will be made right, but not all of it. Christ also heals our bodies. He resurrects us from the dead, and gives us glory. He comforts us in a way that we cannot comfort each other, because He knows us as we cannot currently know each other. And finally, when we do choose to separate ourselves from God, He invites us back In short, He paid the price for our sins. Edited May 16, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[mfbukowski]

No. It isn't. It is willful evil, done by an individual who knew better.

If one of my students bullied another it would not be an accident of experience. It would be willful disobedience to the light of Christ (assuming the person wasn't a pyschopath, or mentally unaccountable, etc...).

We are accountable for our actions and can't (in many cases) blame the universe for not providing us the right experiences to know better.

Yeah, and what is all this stuff about the innocence of children anyway?

Edited May 16, 2012 by mfbukowski