Do Lds Beliefs About Pre-Grace Do Better Than Those Of Hell-Believing Christians?

[Alvino]

As far as I know, Mormons think the grace and love of Christ, through His Atonement, is the only thing saving us from being subject to Satan's control and torture after we die (unless we consciously and fully accept to follow Satan). Christ's sacrifice was NOT out of justice but out of love and grace. That is, Jesus and the Father would have still been just as full of Justice and Goodness had they decided NOT to sacrifice The Son.

How is this view of humans any better than what many Mormons I've met would reject as a callous doctrine of Protestants where they think all mankind is so bad that it deserves Hellfire through eternity, but it just so happens that Christ loved us so much as to sacrifice Himself to save us?

In both views, it seems to me, humans are so evil and bad in this "carnal state" that they truly deserve to be at Satan's control after we die; this would be perfectly just.

I'm assuming here that a free decision out of love and grace was made by Father and Son for the Son to come down and die for us and save us from the demands of justice. Does anyone here thinks God and Christ didn't have any other choice but to save mankind because, if not, they would have broken a higher plan and committed and injustice by not saving us, thus jeopardized their status as Gods? I want to know that, too. Didn't they have to sacrifice the Son to be able to continue being good Gods... or Gods at all?

I ask because, as I mentioned here, most Mormons I've met would reject the idea some Protestants and Catholics have that humans, no matter how good their actions and intentions are, deserve Hellfire were it not for the Atonement. Most Mormons, in my experience, would say that it would have been an injustice if God hadn't saved us from Satan through Christ... but if it is an injustice, then they (God and YHWH) were bound by justice to do it so as to not lose their status as Gods. These Mormons would say to me (some did, by the way) that the view of humans Protestants portray is so horrible and cruel so as to think good, honorable people who got the wrong religion or no religion deserve going to Hell, that it's hard to think they (Mormons) don't have a better option. But, is this even true?

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino

[CV75]

But, is this even true?

May I ask you to frame your questions in terms of what you currently believe or have concluded?

[selek1]

As far as I know, Mormons think the grace and love of Christ, through His Atonement, is the only thing saving us from being subject to Satan's control and torture after we die (unless we consciously and fully accept to follow Satan).

The key words there as "as far as I know".

Unfortunately, the breadth and depth of your knowledge are frighteningly inadequate.

I suggest you visit LDS.org and do some studying before pursuing this further.

Christ sacrifice was NOT out of justice but out of love and grace. That is, Jesus and the Father would have still been just as full of Justice and Goodness if they decided NOT to sacrifice The Son.

Unfortunately, no.

No one who understands LDS theology would accept this premise.

The entire Plan of Salvation exists to bring about the exaltation and eternal life of Man. We were offered the plan and agreed to abide by its precepts.

Had God not offered the Atonement (the sole means by which man might be redeemed), then he would have been guilty not only of fraud, but deliberate entrapment- neither of which is consistent with love or grace.

How is this view of humans any better than what many Mormons I've met would reject as a callous doctrine of Protestants where they think all mankind is so bad that it deserves Hellfire through eternity, but it just so happens that Christ loved us so much as to sacrifice Himself to save us?

It is not.

Fortunately, it is not something we believe- nor can we be saddled with it in anything approaching good conscience.

I'm assuming here that a free decision out of love and grace was made by Father and Son for the Son to come down and die for us and save us from the demands of justice.

Ironically, this is correct. What far too many protestants tend to forget is that sacred covenants are two-way streets. They obligate both man and God.

Does anyone here thinks God and Christ didn't have any other choice but to save mankind because, if not, they would have broken a higher plan and committed and injustice by not saving us, thus jeopardized their status as Gods?

No- the Plan of Salvation was voluntary, both for God and his children.

Having obligated himself, however, God is required by justice to honor his part of the agreement.

That, however, has little or nothing to do with the caricature upon which your question is predicated.

I want to know that, too. Didn't they have to sacrifice the Son to be able to continue being good Gods... or Gods at all?

I ask because, as I mentioned here, most Mormons I've met would reject the idea some Protestants and Catholics have that humans, no matter how good their actions and intentions are, deserve Hellfire were it not for the Atonement.

Again- your notion of "hellfire" is both simplistic and does not conform to Mormon theology.

Most Mormons, in my experience, would say that it would have been an injustice if God hadn't saved us from Satan through Christ... but if it is an injustice, then they (God and YHWH) were bound by justice to do it so as to not lose their status as Gods.

I somehow doubt this characterization is accurate.

Based on my interactions with the Saints, I think it more accurate to say that "Having obligated themselves, Heavenly Father and Our Lord could not leave us lost and fallen without violating their very nature."

These Mormons would say to me (some did, by the way) that the view of humans Protestants portray is so horrible and cruel so as to think good, honorable people who got the wrong religion or no religion deserve going to Hell, that it's hard to think they (Mormons) don't have a better option. But, is this even true?

It is an unalterable precept of Mormon theology that we will be judged by the light we are given. In this particular instance, ignorance of the law IS a valid defense.

But again- your question distorts or ignores a number of crucial points regarding the nature of our probation and our covenants with God.

Suffice it to say that we reject the notion that mankind are irredeemably fallen in and of themselves and that they are little better than beasts to be driven before Satan's wrath.

The conditions of our fall and repentance are predicated upon God's wisdom, his good word, and the eternal and inalienable principles of agency.

Anything less is either a logical error or a damnable lie (pun intended).

Edited August 13, 2012 by selek1

[zerinus]

As far as I know, Mormons think the grace and love of Christ, through His Atonement, is the only thing saving us from being subject to Satan's control and torture after we die (unless we consciously and fully accept to follow Satan). Christ's sacrifice was NOT out of justice but out of love and grace. That is, Jesus and the Father would have still been just as full of Justice and Goodness had they decided NOT to sacrifice The Son.

God would have been just, but not merciful. See Alma 42:15.

How is this view of humans any better than what many Mormons I've met would reject as a callous doctrine of Protestants where they think all mankind is so bad that it deserves Hellfire through eternity, but it just so happens that Christ loved us so much as to sacrifice Himself to save us?

In Mormonism, all mankind would have been lost had it not been for the Atonement. The fundamental difference with Protestantism is that they believe that this is achieved by faith alone, without any other input from man. In Mormonism, there has to be an input, and that input consists of repentance and obedience to the laws and ordinances of God. See Articles of Faith 1:3.

In both views, it seems to me, humans are so evil and bad in this "carnal state" that they truly deserve to be at Satan's control after we die; this would be perfectly just.

That is not quite accurate either. Mormonism does not subscribe to Calvinist "total depravity of man".

I'm assuming here that a free decision out of love and grace was made by Father and Son for the Son to come down and die for us and save us from the demands of justice. Does anyone here thinks God and Christ didn't have any other choice but to save mankind because, if not, they would have broken a higher plan and committed and injustice by not saving us, thus jeopardized their status as Gods? I want to know that, too. Didn't they have to sacrifice the Son to be able to continue being good Gods... or Gods at all?

Well, God has declared His objective is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). That is His "work and glory". So if He didn't do that then He wouldn't be glorifying Himself. Not sure what conclusion you are drawing from your question.

I ask because, as I mentioned here, most Mormons I've met would reject the idea some Protestants and Catholics have that humans, no matter how good their actions and intentions are, deserve Hellfire were it not for the Atonement.

Not sure if Catholics subscribe to Calvinist "total depravity".

Most Mormons, in my experience, would say that it would have been an injustice if God hadn't saved us from Satan through Christ... but if it is an injustice, then they (God and YHWH) were bound by justice to do it so as to not lose their status as Gods.

God would not have been merciful, not unjust. God needs to be merciful as well as just in order to win the trust, faith, and confidence of mankind, in order to exercise faith in Him to be saved.

These Mormons would say to me (some did, by the way) that the view of humans Protestants portray is so horrible and cruel so as to think good, honorable people who got the wrong religion or no religion deserve going to Hell, that it's hard to think they (Mormons) don't have a better option. But, is this even true?

Your question isn't clear.

[selek1]

God would have been just, but not merciful. See Alma 42:15.

Incorrect. See Alma 42:15.

A means of redemption was explicit in the Plan of Salvation- had Heavenly Father not fulfilled his pledge he would have been neither just nor merciful.

[zerinus]

Incorrect. See Alma 42:15.

A means of redemption was explicit in the Plan of Salvation- had Heavenly Father not fulfilled his pledge he would have been neither just nor merciful.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I have to disagree. You are trying to confuse the meaning of justice and mercy. You are basically saying that God wouldn't be just if He wasn't merciful. The two concepts do not blend together in that way. Mercy cannot "rob" justice, and Justice cannot "rob" mercy. They are inherently at odds with each other. The demands of Justice has to be fulfilled. Failing to be merciful does not make one unjust. It simply makes him unmerciful. Being unmerciful is not equivalent to being unjust.

Edited August 13, 2012 by zerinus

[Alvino]

The key words there as "as far as I know".

Unfortunately, the breadth and depth of your knowledge are frighteningly inadequate.

I suggest you visit LDS.org and do some studying before pursuing this further.

Unfortunately, no.

No one who understands LDS theology would accept this premise.

The entire Plan of Salvation exists to bring about the exaltation and eternal life of Man. We were offered the plan and agreed to abide by its precepts.

Had God not offered the Atonement (the sole means by which man might be redeemed), then he would have been guilty not only of fraud, but deliberate entrapment- neither of which is consistent with love or grace.

Firstly, were God and Christ bound to provide such an Atonement and plan in order for them to be Just and Good? Were their status as Gods not in risk had they not offered these things even in the pre-existence? You are still not answering the question of whether their offering or sacrifice was out of free grace and love, or out of justice.

Secondly, this also doesn't answer the question of the status of mankind. Don't we all deserve to be in the hands of Satan after we die because of our human condition? That we can be redeemed by Christ doesn't answer this question. I'm interested in the view of humans that Mormons have, not whether they believe there is a way out of condemnation or not, I know they think they do.

It is not.

Fortunately, it is not something we believe- nor can we be saddled with it in anything approaching good conscience.

You are missing the point of the questions, selek1. I'm asking about the Mormon view of the human condition, not of whether there is a way out of the hole or not. Do you not believe that humans, because of our condition as fallible creatures, deserve to be separated from God completely EVEN if we are secured a way out (unless you consciously reject it) because of either a previous agreement in the pre-existence (as you point out is in Mormonism) or because of God's free choice without any agreement (as in Protestantism)? I mean, that's the whole point of God's mercy, isn't it? It is just that we should pay our debts but we are not able to so justice demands that we "go to jail". It is only because of Christ that we can get out of it by having Him paying the debt.

Ironically, this is correct. What far too many protestants tend to forget is that sacred covenants are two-way streets. They obligate both man and God.

Once again, selek1, EVEN IF we assume we made a pact with God to obey His commandments in the pre-existence, this still means that you think non-believers who reject Christianity and do NOT follow God deserve to have their punishment due: namely, to be cut out from God forever. What's the difference? You still think we are deserving of "Hell" if we reject God, just as Protestants do.

No- the Plan of Salvation was voluntary, both for God and his children.

You are missing the point entirely, brother. I was referring there to the view that God Himself is part of a plan that has been going on before Him and will continue with those after Him. If God is part of such a plan, then offering Jesus as a sacrifice was not an option if He wanted to stay being a God, was it?

Having obligated himself, however, God is required by justice to honor his part of the agreement.

I'm talking about BEFORE he even made the agreement. Did he have to make the agreement for Him to continue to be God?

That, however, has little or nothing to do with the caricature upon which your question is predicated.

It has everything to do because, even if what I said was a 'caricature', that caricature doesn't change the problem. You guys still seem to see humans in the same horrible light in our human condition as Protestants do.

I want to know that, too. Didn't they have to sacrifice the Son to be able to continue being good Gods... or Gods at all?

Well, that was one of the questions. But if you don't know, that's all right.

Again- your notion of "hellfire" is both simplistic and does not conform to Mormon theology.

Really? How would our lives after death be if Christ hadn't come? That is, what would be the condition we would be in as a result of our human condition and regardless of however many good actions we do? The same problem for Protestants is applicable to Mormons.

I somehow doubt this characterization is accurate.

Based on my interactions with the Saints, I think it more accurate to say that "Having obligated themselves, Heavenly Father and Our Lord could not leave us lost and fallen without violating their very nature."

We may disagree, that's fine.

It is an unalterable precept of Mormon theology that we will be judged by the light we are given. In this particular instance, ignorance of the law IS a valid defense.

This is another of those contradictory things in Mormonism. If we are going to be judged by however much light we are given, why give Christ at all as a sacrifice? All that would have been needed is information and revelation. Why have something more than obedience of the light we were given?

But again- your question distorts or ignores a number of crucial points regarding the nature of our probation and our covenants with God.

Suffice it to say that we reject the notion that mankind are irredeemably fallen in and of themselves and that they are little better than beasts to be driven before Satan's wrath.

As I've explained, you guys also believed that humans are irredeemably fallen in and of themselves if it weren't for Christ, or for the covenant we made with God in the pre-existence, it doesn't make any difference. The point is that our human condition brings upon us total condemnation if it weren't for Christ. What's the worth of our human condition in Mormonism? What do we deserve because of our sinful inclinations? The same in Mormonism as in Protestantism: total separation from God.

The conditions of our fall and repentance are predicated upon God's wisdom, his good word, and the eternal and inalienable principles of agency.

Anything less is either a logical error or a damnable lie (pun intended).

Needless to say, this doesn't answer anything here.

[Alvino]

zerinus, thanks for responding and I'll respond to your bigger post later on. I just wanted to respond to this one now.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I have to disagree. You are trying to confuse the meaning of justice and mercy. You are basically saying that God wouldn't be just if He wasn't merciful.

It seems to me that selek1 is saying that due to the Father having promised to us in the pre-existence to send a Savior that would save us from irremediable condemnation, it wouldn't be just nor merciful to break this agreement by, all of a sudden, not sending the Christ he said he would. He's not saying that one robs the other but that, once agreed to do something, it is unjust to not do what one said he would and it wouldn't be merciful to send us here without any way to be saved when we were expecting His promise to be fulfilled. It's both cruel and unjust to do such a thing.

ETA: But you are correct, zerinus, in pointing out Alma 42:15 which makes this whole issue even weirder. On the one hand, Alma 42:15 says it was justice that we be condemned because of our sins... but on the other hand, if God promised he was going to send Christ to pay the debt and we agreed to come to Earth because we knew this, then it was unjust for us to pay for our sins since God said he was going to pay through Christ, which is a contradiction.

Of course, a way out is to say, as you said, zerinus, that it was not justice but mercy that Christ should come to save us (although such position is, still, subject to the problems I mentioned). Selek1's positionj is logically incompatible with Alma 42:15.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino

[zerinus]

zerinus, thanks for responding and I'll respond to your bigger post later on. I just wanted to respond to this one now.

It seems to me that selek1 is saying that due to the Father having promised to us in the pre-existence to send a Savior that would save us from irremediable condemnation, it wouldn't be just nor merciful to break this agreement by, all of a sudden, not sending the Christ he said he would. He's not saying that one robs the other but that, once agreed to do something, it is unjust to not do what one said he would and it wouldn't be merciful to send us here without any way to be saved when we were expecting His promise to be fulfilled. It's both cruel and unjust to do such a thing.

The "promise" is irrelevant to the question. The plan itself is a plan of mercy. Christ is the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8; Moses 7:47). The "slaying" was done in the foreknowledge of God in eternity before anything had started. That was the "plan of mercy" so that the demands of Justice could be satisfied, and God could be a "just God, and a merciful God also" (Alma 42:15).

[selek1]

Firstly, were God and Christ bound to provide such an Atonement and plan in order for them to be Just and Good?

No. They were under no obligation to do so- other than the fact that they deemed it wise and proper to do so.

The Plan of Salvation was enacted because it suited their purposes, not because they owed us anything.

Were their status as Gods not in risk had they not offered these things even in the pre-existence? You are still not answering the question of whether their offering or sacrifice was out of free grace and love, or out of justice.

First and foremost, this is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or proposition.

The plan by which we would live a mortal life, gain a physical body, and eventually be redeemed (if not exalted) came about from God's love.

The fact that he kept his end of the bargain and provided a sacrifice by which we might be redeemed came about out of God's justice.

Second, I am loathe to suggest- or concede- that there is anything God might do to "endanger" his status as God.

It has been my experience that those who use that particular linguistic construction do so for polemical and sectarian purposes rather than to facilitate discussion.

Secondly, this also doesn't answer the question of the status of mankind. Don't we all deserve to be in the hands of Satan after we die because of our human condition?

No. We "deserve" to be punished for our transgression of the law- laws to which we agreed to abide before coming to the Earth.

It is also important to note that (except for the most impenitent and willful of sinners) Mormons disagree with the standard Protestant notion that Hell and damnation will be endless and infinite.

When the Scriptures speak of "endless" and "eternal" damnation, we understand it to be referring to their nature, not their duration.

It should also be noted that there is nothing in LDS theology or Scripture which implies that Satan will be given "free reign" to do as he pleases.

On the contrary, there is ample Scriptural and theological precedent to indicate that Satan has been kept on a "short leash" regarding his treatment of mankind.

That we can be redeemed by Christ doesn't answer this question. I'm interested in the view of humans that Mormons have, not whether they believe there is a way out of condemnation or not, I know they think they do.

According to Mormon theology, there are three possible outcomes of our mortal probation: exaltation, salvation, and damnation.

Those who accept the fulness of the Gospel and Christ's redemption will receive exaltation.

Those who accept something less than the fulness of the Gospel will receive a degree of salvation.

Those who categorically and willfully reject God and his justice will receive damnation.

I mean, that's the whole point of God's mercy, isn't it? It is just that we should pay our debts but we are not able to so justice demands that we "go to jail". It is only because of Christ that we can get out of it by having Him paying the debt.

I just KNOW this is going to be misrepresented, but you're missing the point.

We are only "in debt" in the first place because God felt it was wise for us to become so.

Had we not agreed to his Plan of Salvation, we could have remained with him forever- but we would have been forever immature- just like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That was contrary to his plan and his wisdom.

The Plan of Salvation and the Fall of Man in the Garden were part of God's plan from the beginning. It was the only way by which (for lack of a better metaphor) we could leave the nest and learn to fly on our own.

Yet once we were separated from God, a means had to be provided by which we could return. In his mercy and wisdom, God found a way by which we could both grow and return to him.

Once again, selek1, EVEN IF we assume we made a pact with God to obey His commandments in the pre-existence, this still means that you think non-believers who reject Christianity and do NOT follow God deserve to have their punishment due: namely, to be cut out from God forever.

Again, you're conflating a lot of things that need to be addressed separately- fundamentally, your premise is flawed, as I explained above.

What's the difference? You still think we are deserving of "Hell" if we reject God, just as Protestants do.

And yet we make a number of critical distinctions (as detailed above).

You are missing the point entirely, brother. I was referring there to the view that God Himself is part of a plan that has been going on before Him and will continue with those after Him. If God is part of such a plan, then offering Jesus as a sacrifice was not an option if He wanted to stay being a God, was it?

Unfortunately, you are now deep into the realm of wild speculation.

You assume- without evidence- that God's status as deity is conditional upon his allowing us the same opportunity. There is no scriptural support for such an argument.

I'm talking about BEFORE he even made the agreement. Did he have to make the agreement for Him to continue to be God?

Any answer here would be the basest speculation. We have no idea what other covenants God might- or might not- have made.

We only know those covenants he has made with us.

As I've explained, you guys also believed that humans are irredeemably fallen in and of themselves

False. We believe we are fallen because we have transgressed not because we were born.

Our transgressions (and we've all made them) were a matter of choice and free-will, not something intrinsic or inescapable.

if it weren't for Christ, or for the covenant we made with God in the pre-existence, it doesn't make any difference.

Again, false. Our mortal probation is a voluntary trial, not something imposed upon us.

The point is that our human condition brings upon us total condemnation if it weren't for Christ.

False. Our transgressions- not our humanity- are what condemn us. Edited August 13, 2012 by selek1

[Alvino]

God would have been just, but not merciful. See Alma 42:15.

OK, but this doesn't answer anything, either. Would God still be as good as He is had he not been merciful by offering Jesus as sacrifice? Would God still be God had he NOT offered Jesus?

In Mormonism, all mankind would have been lost had it not been for the Atonement. The fundamental difference with Protestantism is that they believe that this is achieved by faith alone, without any other input from man. In Mormonism, there has to be an input, and that input consists of repentance and obedience to the laws and ordinances of God. See Articles of Faith 1:3.

That's all right. The point I'm trying to make is that the Mormon view of what humans deserve is just as bad as what Protestants view humans deserve. Many Mormons, I'm sure, would get a knee jerk reaction to this since they would want to believe that it is unfair and unjust that no matter how good a person you are, if you don't get the right god right, then you get to be in Satan's torture forever. The point is that in both views there is no difference in what they think the human condition deserves, regardless of how much good you do in this life.

That is not quite accurate either. Mormonism does not subscribe to Calvinist "total depravity of man".

Total depravity has nothing to do. Put it like this: What is the difference between what Protestants think non-believers will suffer and what Mormons believe non-believers would suffer if it weren't for Christ?

Well, God has declared His objective is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). That is His "work and glory". So if He didn't do that then He wouldn't be glorifying Himself. Not sure what conclusion you are drawing from your question.

Good question. I was having in mind the idea that if God doesn't do justice, then he would stop being God. If someone out there thinks Christ's sacrifice is a demand of justice (as you appear to not believe), then Christ's sacrifice looks much less unselfish when you realize God and Christ were risking their God-status if Jesus didn't sacrificed himself.

Not sure if Catholics subscribe to Calvinist "total depravity".

Total depravity is that we can't choose to follow God. That's different from saying we can't be saved without God and that we deserve hellfire.

God would not have been merciful, not unjust. God needs to be merciful as well as just in order to win the trust, faith, and confidence of mankind, in order to exercise faith in Him to be saved.

OK, so you have one less problem. But the other problem was that the view Mormons believing what you do have is that humans, because of their human condition, deserve (indeed, is demanded by justice) is that they should be condemned, just as Protestants do. That's the problem and it is specially a problem if someone believes that the Mormon view of humans is more fair than those of Protestants. It certainly doesn't appear to be so at all.

Your question isn't clear.

I hope what I meant is clearer now.

By the way, I want to congratulate you on your extremely civil tone in discussing this. I want to be like you when I grow up.

[zerinus]

OK, but this doesn't answer anything, either. Would God still be as good as He is had he not been merciful by offering Jesus as sacrifice? Would God still be God had he NOT offered Jesus?

That's all right. The point I'm trying to make is that the Mormon view of what humans deserve is just as bad as what Protestants view humans deserve. Many Mormons, I'm sure, would get a knee jerk reaction to this since they would want to believe that it is unfair and unjust that no matter how good a person you are, if you don't get the right god right, then you get to be in Satan's torture forever. The point is that in both views there is no difference in what they think the human condition deserves, regardless of how much good you do in this life.

Total depravity has nothing to do. Put it like this: What is the difference between what Protestants think non-believers will suffer and what Mormons believe non-believers would suffer if it weren't for Christ?

Good question. I was having in mind the idea that if God doesn't do justice, then he would stop being God. If someone out there thinks Christ's sacrifice is a demand of justice (as you appear to not believe), then Christ's sacrifice looks much less unselfish when you realize God and Christ were risking their God-status if Jesus didn't sacrificed himself.

Total depravity is that we can't choose to follow God. That's different from saying we can't be saved without God and that we deserve hellfire.

OK, so you have one less problem. But the other problem was that the view Mormons believing what you do have is that humans, because of their human condition, deserve (indeed, is demanded by justice) is that they should be condemned, just as Protestants do. That's the problem and it is specially a problem if someone believes that the Mormon view of humans is more fair than those of Protestants. It certainly doesn't appear to be so at all.

I hope what I meant is clearer now.

By the way, I want to congratulate you on your extremely civil tone in discussing this. I want to be like you when I grow up.

The impression I get is that you just want to argue for its own sake, and I am not interested in that.

[selek1]

The impression I get is that you just want to argue for its own sake, and I am not interested in that.

Must... control... impulse... to... get... thread-banned... a... second... time... in... one... night....

[Alvino]

The "promise" is irrelevant to the question. The plan itself is a plan of mercy.

The thing is, it does seem unjust to break a promise you have made previously, regardless of whether it was motivated out of mercy or not. If I say I'm going to help a neighbor out to cut down a tree, that's a promise that I didn't really have to make. It was done out of mercy. The problem is that if he does something relying on me keeping my promise, and I reiterate my promise several times that I'm going to help him out (as God did through the prophets), then it looks very unjust that you break your promise, specially if you are God.

[Alvino]

The impression I get is that you just want to argue for its own sake, and I am not interested in that.

In all honestly, that's not my intention and if there's anything I can do to change your opinion on this and count with your very intelligent responses here, please let me know. I take ideas very seriously and if there's something you see as frivolous that I'm saying, I want to know what it is.

Please?

[supersnail]

The impression I get is that you just want to argue for its own sake, and I am not interested in that.

Maybe I misunderstood something in this thread, but I actually have a feeling Alvino is genuinely unfamiliar with key LDS doctrines, which explains some of the statements in the OP.

In saying that, I don't mean to excuse anyone from not Googling lds.org and putting one's questions in the context what has already been written on the topic.

[Storm Rider]

.....

Does anyone here thinks God and Christ didn't have any other choice but to save mankind because, if not, they would have broken a higher plan and committed and injustice by not saving us, thus jeopardized their status as Gods? I want to know that, too. Didn't they have to sacrifice the Son to be able to continue being good Gods... or Gods at all?

...Most Mormons, in my experience, would say that it would have been an injustice if God hadn't saved us from Satan through Christ... but if it is an injustice, then they (God and YHWH) were bound by justice to do it so as to not lose their status as Gods. These Mormons would say to me (some did, by the way) that the view of humans Protestants portray is so horrible and cruel so as to think good, honorable people who got the wrong religion or no religion deserve going to Hell, that it's hard to think they (Mormons) don't have a better option. But, is this even true?

There is a lot to your post and I wish to only focus on what I have highlighted above, this concept that God can lose or have taken away his Godhood. This is a completely foreign concept to me; it is not within LDS teaching. God is God; there is nothing greater than he. God works within the parameters which he put in place. He is the author of both justice and love; they do not exist separate from him. His status as God is incapable of being taken from him; you assume that there is God above him or a power greater than him which is not correct.

Good Gods? Is there a bad God? These are also foreign concepts. God is God and he can only be who he is. He is not capricious and chooses one day to be spiteful and on another day to be merciful.

You make too many assumptions here to make this entire line of questioning worthwhile.

[supersnail]

Jesus atoned for Adam and Eve's transgression, which was part of the plan of salvation in the first place. The transgression and the Atonement were part of the same plan from the beginning. Whatever meaning you want to impute to the word "grace" and whatever fantasy situation you want to contemplate, the thrust of the Mormon doctrine on the trangression is not that we deserve to be eternally and infinitely separated from God because of a "human condition." It makes little sense to ask what does it mean if there was transgression and no atonement, because they are both already completed, and they are both part of the plan. It's speculation about a doctrine that isn't there and which isn't taught or believed in. But you can't make the shoe fit even with that shoehorn.

Jesus also atoned for our personal sins, but our salvation (of which there are degrees) and exaltation are also conditioned on our repentance. Repentance does not mean just apologizing and accepting a certain denomination's doctrines verbally. A person who knows the doctrines of the church and the plan of salvation, and even knows that they are true, and yet acts contrary to God's commandments may be worse off than an unbeliever who acts in accordance with what light he or she has received into her heart, as imperfect as that reception may have been.

2 Nephi 25:23 -- For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

James 2:19 -- Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

[supersnail]

One possible source of confusion is the difference between what would have happened (a purely counterfactual, impossible scenario discussed only as a way of understanding the actual doctrine), and "deserved." The transgression of Adam and Eve resulted in temporal and spiritual death. Without the Atonement, that would have remained permanently. There would be no resurrection and eternal life. The transgression had an effect--the Fall--but that is not equivalent to saying we deserve to be cast into a lake of fire for the transgression.

This is kind of day-one stuff. In my experience, adult investigators learn this very early on.

Edited August 13, 2012 by supersnail

[Calm]

Maybe I misunderstood something in this thread, but I actually have a feeling Alvino is genuinely unfamiliar with key LDS doctrines, which explains some of the statements in the OP.

In saying that, I don't mean to excuse anyone from not Googling lds.org and putting one's questions in the context what has already been written on the topic.

(I'm an ex-Mormon)

Of course, being an ex-Mormon doesn't guarantee familiarity with LDS doctrine, I know a few exMormons that couldn't get LDS doctrine more wrong if they tried.

[Alvino]

No. They were under no obligation to do so- other than the fact that they deemed it wise and proper to do so.

The Plan of Salvation was enacted because it suited their purposes, not because they owed us anything.

I asked because some Mormons believe that God is following a plan handed down from before Him and that he came to be God as he followed this plan. If someone were to believe this, then I find it rather hard to say that He would be God if he disobeyed that infinitely old plan. Saying the plan suited their purposes doesn't really clarify whether you believe this or not since their purposes might very well be to stay being Gods or to just follow the plan out of love or self-preservation.

First and foremost, this is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or proposition.

The plan by which we would live a mortal life, gain a physical body, and eventually be redeemed (if not exalted) came about from God's love.

Let me just say at this point it seems like you do not believe the plan of salvation is older than God. That is, that God the Father is the original author of such a plan to send a Savior.... right? I just want to make sure.

The fact that he kept his end of the bargain and provided a sacrifice by which we might be redeemed came about out of God's justice.

OK, but that's a problem, selek1, as zerinus pointed out and as it seems to contradict Alma 42:15. I posted the reason as follows in a post to zerinus: "Alma 42:15 says it was justice that we be condemned because of our sins... but on the other hand, if God promised he was going to send Christ to pay the debt and we agreed to come to Earth because we knew this, then it was unjust for us to pay for our sins since God said he was going to pay through Christ, which is a contradiction." How do you solve this problem, selek1?

Second, I am loathe to suggest- or concede- that there is anything God might do to "endanger" his status as God.

It has been my experience that those who use that particular linguistic construction do so for polemical and sectarian purposes rather than to facilitate discussion.

Are you willing to accept that it is possible for God to sin by doing an injustice and still be God?

No. We "deserve" to be punished for our transgression of the law- laws to which we agreed to abide before coming to the Earth.

Well, of course, if you never sinned you would be worthy of heaven, though you wouldn't be only a human. The point is the same, selek1. If you fall short from the glory of God then it doesn't matter how much good you do in this world, you are still worthy of condemnation. In other words, you make simple human faults as worthy of unspeakable torture as Protestants do. What's the difference?

The only difference you could bring is that little children are said to be saved and that at least for them things are different. But you would have a hard time proving your case from your own scripture:

D&C 74:7 7 "But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean."

Moses 6:54 "Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world."

Given that the reasons these verses give for why little children don't go to hell you can see that it is not their innocence precisely, but the atonement of Jesus Christ. Just as it is with older people. They, too, would be damned were it not for Christ's sacrifice which was done out of mercy, not justice. In other words, it was just that they, too, be condemned if God would have decided not to come here. Think about it.

Or you could address the issue and tell me why the atonement was done out of justice when a lot of the scriptures say that it was done out of mercy and that it came about to pay justice (that would have "gotten us in jail" because we can't pay the debt we incurred) and show mercy.

It is also important to note that (except for the most impenitent and willful of sinners) Mormons disagree with the standard Protestant notion that Hell and damnation will be endless and infinite.

Yes, this is a difference. But, still, this is because of Christ's sacrifice, NOT because humans don't deserve (what seems like a patently unfair thing) suffering infinitely for ANY sin. Again, the view of humans by themselves is not any less cruel under Mormonism as it is under Protestantism. It is true that the Atonement of Jesus Christ does seem to be much more merciful and reaches wider than it does for Protestants, I'll give you guys that.

When the Scriptures speak of "endless" and "eternal" damnation, we understand it to be referring to their nature, not their duration.

Pfff. I feel better now.

It should also be noted that there is nothing in LDS theology or Scripture which implies that Satan will be given "free reign" to do as he pleases.

On the contrary, there is ample Scriptural and theological precedent to indicate that Satan has been kept on a "short leash" regarding his treatment of mankind.

According to Mormon theology, there are three possible outcomes of our mortal probation: exaltation, salvation, and damnation.

Those who accept the fulness of the Gospel and Christ's redemption will receive exaltation.

Those who accept something less than the fulness of the Gospel will receive a degree of salvation.

Those who categorically and willfully reject God and his justice will receive damnation.

I know, selek1, but the point is that these differences are NOT because humans are any less deserving of "outer darkness" under what Mormons think than under what Protestants think. The only difference is that the Atonement of Jesus Christ for Mormons is more encompassing. That was my point. If someone goes to the third and lowest kingdom, the telestial, they go there only because of Christ's sacrifice. I ask you as I ask zerinus, what's the difference between the Hell Protestants think people like me will go to and the condition that would ensue if Christ had never come to atone for us and we died without any salvation? Indeed, for both this would be a just thing to happen, were it not for God's mercy. Humans appear to be equal deserving of these horrendous sufferings under both views.

I just KNOW this is going to be misrepresented, but you're missing the point.

We are only "in debt" in the first place because God felt it was wise for us to become so.

Had we not agreed to his Plan of Salvation, we could have remained with him forever- but we would have been forever immature- just like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That was contrary to his plan and his wisdom.

The Plan of Salvation and the Fall of Man in the Garden were part of God's plan from the beginning. It was the only way by which (for lack of a better metaphor) we could leave the nest and learn to fly on our own.

Yet once we were separated from God, a means had to be provided by which we could return. In his mercy and wisdom, God found a way by which we could both grow and return to him.

It's not really relevant whether God found it wiser for us to get in that predicament. The point is that the scriptures say that God sent Christ out of mercy to meet justice's demands. In other words, it was just that we should "go to jail" for not paying our debt. There is a contradiction, as I've shown, between what scriptures like Alma 42:15 say and your position.

Even if we forget about those verses and say, as you do, that Christ had to come because a previous agreement between Him and us, as you believe, out of a plan offered out of mercy, then you STILL have the original problem of believing that humans right now are in such a state, no matter how good they are, in which (were it not for Christ's sacrifice) we should suffer unspeakable torments. You condemn us as much as Protestants do. You haven't bettered anything here.

Again, you're conflating a lot of things that need to be addressed separately- fundamentally, your premise is flawed, as I explained above.

And yet we make a number of critical distinctions (as detailed above).

Unfortunately, you are now deep into the realm of wild speculation.

You assume- without evidence- that God's status as deity is conditional upon his allowing us the same opportunity. There is no scriptural support for such an argument.

No no no. That was not what I saying God's Godhood was dependent on. I said that God's Godhood is conditional upon Him being just. That is, if God were to do an injustice, then He would cease to be God. Do you contend that?

That is important because if Christ's sacrifice was a demand of justice (though it's different in your view since Christ had already agree to come when we agreed to come to Earth, I realize that), then the status of the Father and the Son as Gods were dependent on Christ sacrificing Himself.

Any answer here would be the basest speculation. We have no idea what other covenants God might- or might not- have made.

We only know those covenants he has made with us.

No, brother. I'm talking here about the view that God's plan has been a plan NOT originally designed by our God but that it has been a plan repeated over and over again in the past. There are some who believe this among you and that's why I was mentioning it. If God's plan were to be such a type of plan, and He was required as a God to perform this plan of justice again, then God would stop being God if he didn't sacrifice His Son.

False. We believe we are fallen because we have transgressed not because we were born.

Again, I realize this but if you are human it's inevitable that you will sin. This doesn't change anything. You simply WILL fall short from being worthy of God by yourself without Jesus. How many times do I have to repeat that I'm talking about the human condition being deserving of unspeakable torment? If I lie once, that's it, it is justice that I should suffer the same under Mormonism than under Protestantism; that Christ's mercy comes up to save me is irrelevant. Both views are equally cruel in this respect towards petty crimes.

Again, false. Our mortal probation is a voluntary trial, not something imposed upon us.

selek1, my criticism to what you have been saying doesn't presuppose that this existence is imposed upon us. You still believe that it is according to justice that we should be condemned because of having committed even one sin if it weren't for Christ's intervention, do you not? That's as much as I need to be justified in saying that Mormons still believe even the best of imperfect humans deserve to suffer in Protestant Hell.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Maybe I misunderstood something in this thread, but I actually have a feeling Alvino is genuinely unfamiliar with key LDS doctrines, which explains some of the statements in the OP.

In saying that, I don't mean to excuse anyone from not Googling lds.org and putting one's questions in the context what has already been written on the topic.

Really? So, you agree with selek1's take? How do you respond to the apparent contradiction that was pointed out between his position and verses like Alma 42:15?

[Alvino]

There is a lot to your post and I wish to only focus on what I have highlighted above, this concept that God can lose or have taken away his Godhood. This is a completely foreign concept to me; it is not within LDS teaching. God is God; there is nothing greater than he. God works within the parameters which he put in place. He is the author of both justice and love; they do not exist separate from him. His status as God is incapable of being taken from him; you assume that there is God above him or a power greater than him which is not correct.

Good Gods? Is there a bad God? These are also foreign concepts. God is God and he can only be who he is. He is not capricious and chooses one day to be spiteful and on another day to be merciful.

That comes from:

Alma 42:

"22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentence granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice. 24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved. 25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God."

You may believe it is a sort of hyperbole or something like that but that would be irrelevant to the points being made in the OP. You surely don't think that God could simply do ANY thing or command people to do ANY action and he would be God (if by the term you consider Him, by definition, good). For example, if God were to command me to kill an innocent bystander for no reason, then God wouldn't be good. If God commanded someone to rape, then he would not be good, either. Now, if angels can fall because they have free will, can God fall IF he commanded these things? He certainly has the free will to do so, doesn't He?

You make too many assumptions here to make this entire line of questioning worthwhile.

These are some minor points, really, that can be ignored for the main criticisms. Why aren't you attacking those, by the way? If you think these smaller points are not worth your time, then try to attack the other main ones. You'll realize these other points are not critical.

[Alvino]

Jesus atoned for Adam and Eve's transgression, which was part of the plan of salvation in the first place. The transgression and the Atonement were part of the same plan from the beginning. Whatever meaning you want to impute to the word "grace" and whatever fantasy situation you want to contemplate, the thrust of the Mormon doctrine on the trangression is not that we deserve to be eternally and infinitely separated from God because of a "human condition." It makes little sense to ask what does it mean if there was transgression and no atonement, because they are both already completed, and they are both part of the plan. It's speculation about a doctrine that isn't there and which isn't taught or believed in. But you can't make the shoe fit even with that shoehorn.

Jesus also atoned for our personal sins, but our salvation (of which there are degrees) and exaltation are also conditioned on our repentance. Repentance does not mean just apologizing and accepting a certain denomination's doctrines verbally. A person who knows the doctrines of the church and the plan of salvation, and even knows that they are true, and yet acts contrary to God's commandments may be worse off than an unbeliever who acts in accordance with what light he or she has received into her heart, as imperfect as that reception may have been.

2 Nephi 25:23 -- For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

James 2:19 -- Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

What are the demands of justice that Jesus saved us from through mercy, supersnail? Weren't these demands that we should be punished for our sins? That is what you think is justice and fairness. We deserved to be thrown in the fire, however small our sins happened to be. We fell short from the glory of God.

The only thing saving us is Christ's sacrifice. It wouldn't have mattered that you regretted your sins because you couldn't pay the debt of sin; only Christ's sacrifice could.

That's all you need to conclude that what you guys believe is a just horrible punishment for petty sins is the same as it is for Protestants. What don't you agree with in what I said? This is a conclusion from mainstream Mormon beliefs, if you look at it. (I did mention other beliefs in the OP that some people here have found troubling but they are not crucial at all)

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

One possible source of confusion is the difference between what would have happened (a purely counterfactual, impossible scenario discussed only as a way of understanding the actual doctrine), and "deserved."

I don't see the difference. "The demands of justice" was what would have happened without Christ. That's what we normally mean by "deserved", don't we? Trying to downplay the role of this possibility amounts to downplaying the role of the Atonement. You simply can't appreciate the value of the Atonement if you don't seriously consider what would have happened had Christ not sacrificed Himself.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino