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

[KevinG]

I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me,

Confused at the grace that so fully He proffers me;

I tremble to know that for me He was crucified,

That for me, a sinner, He suffered, He bled and died.

O it is wonderful that He should care for me

Enough to die for me!

O it is wonderful, wonderful to me!

I marvel that He would descend from His throne divine

To rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine;

That He should extend His great love unto such as I,

Sufficient to own, to redeem, and to justify.

I think of His side, pierced and bleeding to pay the debt,

Such mercy, such love and devotion can I forget?

No, no! I will praise and adore at the mercy seat,

And testify all my desires He doth fully meet.

(from LDS Hymnal)

Sounds like grace.

[selek1]

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.

Yes, some Saints believe that this is a logical extrapolation of LDS theology (based primarily on their interpretation of the King Follett Discourse).

Unfortunately, it is neither definitive nor doctrinal- and the KFD is, in many respects- suspect..

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.

This assumes two things: first, that your opinion carrier any weight in matters eternal (I disagree), and second, that our Heavenly Father is obligated to follow the same plan as any predecessors.

While that may be a logical extrapolation (given one's assumptions), it is by no means a certaintly.

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.

The keys words are "might very well be". This gives away the fact that you are speculating.

This line of reasoning is a guess. Whether or not it is a reasonable or educated guess remains to be seen.

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.

In all actuality, I don't believe it matters whether the plan is original to our Heavenely Father or part of an eternal pattern- it is the covenant to which we are bound.

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?

I don't see the contradiction that you and Zerinus are proclaiming so lovingly.

As I understand the doctrine and history (and as I have already explained), we had two three choices in the Pre-Existance: God's Plan, Satan's Plan, or the status quo.

Satan's Plan was rejected (more or less summarily) because it destroyed human agency and thus thwarted God's intention to bring about an exalted generation.

God's Plan (sans a Savior) would result in that mature, independent species- but it had the side effect of cutting us off from God in an eternal sense- unless a means by which justice could be satisfied were provided and we could be redeemed.

God's plan required a Savior.

By voluntarily covenanting with us in the Plan of Salvation, God obligated himself to provide one.

Having shaken hands, made the promise, inked the deal, etc. God could not, in justice, renege.

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

I am willing to state plainly that it is a logical impossibility- like God creating a rock too big for him to lift or microwaving a burrito too hot for him to eat it.

Well, of course, if you never sinned you would be worthy of heaven, though you wouldn't be only a human.

This point is contrary to LDS theology.

LDS belief, in fact, postulates that sin is not in fact, an inevitable and irreducable fact of human existence.

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?

I'm sorry- but this is your construction, not ours.

I have already contradicted it, twice- and the assumed harshness inherit to the paradigm- twice.

I feel no need to defend your interpretation- save to say that it does not accurately reflect LDS belief or practice.

[KevinG]

I love it when people make wrong assumptions about LDS doctrines then continue to argue how the wrong assumptions are in fact wrong.

I believe this is the classic straw man fallacy. It is used so often as to be predictable and boring. I suggest the critics of Mormonism find some new ways to rend logic beyond recognition to keep their tactics from getting stale.

Here is a whole catalog of ideas they can use: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

The LDS in turn can use this taxonomy to identify the efforts of others to tell us what we believe that just ain't so.

Enjoy!

[selek1]

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.

Again- you are conflating several things that are not congruent, and are doing so for polemical purposes.

You asked what we thought- now you are arguing for your interpretation.

In other words, you have transitioned from a mode of inquiry to one of trying to proselyte for your positions.

There are several modes in which "damnation" and "under condemnation" are used in Scripture. Only one corresponds to the Protestant notion of "Hellfire".

Other uses in Scripture correspond to being "cut off from the Presence of God", and to "having no eternal increase (meaning stuck eternally as we are and never again growing)".

The Scriptures you cite are using those terms in the former mode.

We left Heaven under one of two pretexts: either exiled for rebellion (as were Satan and his followers) or as pilgrims and travellers enduring our mortal probation. In either case, there is an irrevocable separation that must be bridged by the Plan of Salvation.

Having voluntarily become subject to the plan of Salvation, we can only return by completing its provisions (in other words, through Christ's Atonement).

Yes- the Scripture are correct in stating that little children are redeemed by the Atonement of Christ- but rather than being condemned for sin (and thus in danger of "Hellfire"), it implies that they will be able to return to our Father in Heaven despite their mortality.

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.

Asked and answered. At least twice, now.

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.

As I have already explained- Latter-day Saints do not believe in an infinite or endless torment for sins.

Even the Damnation of Outer Darkness (reserved for the most hateful of God's enemies) does not correlate to the rather fanciful (and extra-Biblical) notions of Hellfire and Damnation.

Again, the view of humans by themselves is not any less cruel under Mormonism as it is under Protestantism.

We understand that you have already convinced yourself that this is so.

Unfortunately, the facts do not support you, nor are the Latter-day Saints swayed by your insistence.

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.

How gracious of you.

If someone goes to the third and lowest kingdom, the telestial, they go there only because of Christ's sacrifice.

Partially correct. They go there because of the Plan of Salvation (of which Christ's atonement is part and parcel) to which they covenanted.

Those who inherit the Telestial Kingdom are those who rejected Christ's atonement and payed for their sins themselves.

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.

This marks the third time I have answered the question. They believe in an endless, eternal, infinite, no-holds-barred damnation.

We do not.

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.

As I have explained repeatedly, the contradiction lies in your construction and assumption- not in LDS Scripture or theology.

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.

Note the qualifiers you use.

IF this is a plan that has been repeated over and over...

IF God was required to repeat this plan...

You don't know this to be the case (and frankly, neither do I). That placed your argument purely in the realm of hypothetical, "what-if".

It is speculation, at best.

Again, I realize this but if you are human it's inevitable that you will sin.

As stated, this notion is contrary to LDS theology.

You simply WILL fall short from being worthy of God by yourself without Jesus.

Incorrect. Mormons categorically reject the notions of fate and/or indelible, unavoidable outcomes.

We categorically reject the notion that being sinful is inextricably intertwined with our humanity.

That we HAVE fallen short, is an unavoidable reality. Nothing in LDS Scripture or theology implies implicitly or explicitly that such a fall was an inevitability.

If we are given the choice to sin, we also have the choice to obey the law.

That is the inalienable principle of agency. It has to be a genuine choice or there is no choice at all.

For us to be truly accountable and responsible for our sins, we must have had the choice not to sin.

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm talking about the human condition being deserving of unspeakable torment?

How many times must I repeat that this notion is alien to LDS theology and belief?

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. Stop trying to saddle us with it.

If I lie once, that's it, it is justice that I should suffer the same under Mormonism than under Protestantism;

As I have stated repeatedly, this is a false equivalency. It does not accurately reflect our beliefs or theology.

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.

False. You are not justified- but are rather condemned- for bearing false witness against us.

We do not subscribe to the Protestant notions of endless and eternal torment, of "Hellfire" and "damnation".

We do not subscribe to the notion that to be human is to be inextricably and iredeemably fallen and corrupt.

Kindly stop insisting that the reverse is true.

[BlueDreams]

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.

I think my quibble is with the word deserve. There is lacking in LDS theology a sense of total depravity that you've mentioned in protestant and catholicism. In my mind, in order for there ot be redemption there must be something that is redeemable. What is man is intrinsically good. God made our spirits. But we're in a fallen state. This goes beyond just sin. Even little children have need of the atonement even though they are considered blameless before the Lord. Justice demands that all things imperfect (whether self inflicted or not) cannot reside with that which is perfect.There's no way around it, the two do not coexist. Christ is that perfecting agent. It is not merely a spiritual redemption but a physical one as well for not only humanity but for all the earth (which is also in a fallen state).

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 wouldn't state that. You mentioned the scripture that states "or God would cease to be God." This is to state that these law are instrinsic to being God. For example, in order for there to be balance in human there must be water and oxygen. If not humans would cease to be human. The wouldn't regress to a child or a fetus, they'd cease. Likewise the nature of God insists on a perfect spiritual balance between justice and mercy and all things. He can't "lose their status." He simply wouldn't be.

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?

Some protestants don't believe that. Some do. For those that do, yes. Total depravity is not something LDS believe in at all. Dual natured would be somewhat more accurate. Agentic would be better. There had to be choice and physicality for us to become like our Heavenly Father. The only way to have choice was to have an equal capability to choose between good and evil. In order to do there needed to be a fall so that evil could be a viable option. Equally necessary for the plan to work was a means to return to God (atonement). So in the beginning, in our deepest and most intrinsic state of being we are good. That it is the opposite from the idea of total depravity and does not give full credence to the idea of deserving hell. It will come if we'd remained in a fallen state, but the scriptures in my mind point to the fact that the Lord never planned for that to be the end all or for such a state to ever exist. Such a state would be contrary to God's nature. We "deserve" to receive the full gifts of the Lord's plan that include immortality and eternal life. That is the point of our creation and existance.

THat's all I have to say.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 14, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Alvino]

How many times must I repeat that this notion is alien to LDS theology and belief?

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS. Stop trying to saddle us with it.

As I have stated repeatedly, this is a false equivalency. It does not accurately reflect our beliefs or theology.

False. You are not justified- but are rather condemned- for bearing false witness against us.

We do not subscribe to the Protestant notions of endless and eternal torment, of "Hellfire" and "damnation".

We do not subscribe to the notion that to be human is to be inextricably and iredeemably fallen and corrupt.

Kindly stop insisting that the reverse is true.

I'll answer to your entire post when I come back from work but I just wanted to say something on this:

I'm not saying there's some Mormon out there who actually thinks to herself that, both in Protestantism and Mormonism, human's petty sins are worthy of the "justice" of being tormented and of being in Satan's control after we die. What I'm claiming is that this belief is a logical conclusion from what you guys actually believe. Stating that, "We don't believe this" misses the point and I agree you guys don't actually think that to yourselves; I'm simply saying it is a logical conclusion from your beliefs and, as such, you must believe it (in a normative sense) if you are to be consistent.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

I love it when people make wrong assumptions about LDS doctrines then continue to argue how the wrong assumptions are in fact wrong.

I believe this is the classic straw man fallacy. It is used so often as to be predictable and boring. I suggest the critics of Mormonism find some new ways to rend logic beyond recognition to keep their tactics from getting stale.

Here is a whole catalog of ideas they can use: http://www.fallacyfi...g/taxonomy.html

The LDS in turn can use this taxonomy to identify the efforts of others to tell us what we believe that just ain't so.

Enjoy!

If you believe that if A then B, and you believe that A, then we can say that you must believe that B is actually the case, through modus ponens. Whether you actually don't think that B is the case, for some reason, doesn't mean B is not a logical conclusion from what you actually believe. Saying you guys don't believe that B is the case is to be missing the point of the logic.

By the way, if you are just going to say I'm committing logical fallacies but not explain where or why or anything else, you are not welcomed in this conversation. I expect the minimum of substance in the responses here. Hymns won't do it either, Kevin.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Alvino

[ERayR]

I'll answer to your entire post when I come back from work but I just wanted to say something on this:

I'm not saying there's some Mormon out there who actually thinks to herself that, both in Protestantism and Mormonism, human's petty sins are worthy of the "justice" of being tormented and of being in Satan's control after we die. What I'm claiming is that this belief is a logical conclusion from what you guys actually believe. Stating that, "We don't believe this" misses the point and I agree you guys don't actually think that to yourselves; I'm simply saying it is a logical conclusion from your beliefs.

Let me try since selek doesn't seem to be getting through. You have not exhibit that you actually know what "us guys" actually believe. You keep propping up YOUR straw men as our beliefs. Stating that we don't believe your caricatures is EXACTLY the POINT. You are tilting at windmills and don't seem to be able to acknowledge it.

Of course to you it may be a logical conclusion you are using faulty data from which to draw your conclusion. there is an old computer programers term you may want to memorize. It is GIGO, Garbage in garbage out.

[ERayR]

If you believe that if A then B, and you believe that A, then we can say that you must believe that B is actually the case, through modus ponens. Whether you actually don't think that B is the case, for some reason, doesn't mean B is not a logical conclusion from what you actually believe. Saying you guys don't believe that B is the case is to be missing the point of the logic.

By the way, if you are just going to say I'm committing logical fallacies but not explain where or why or anything else, you are not welcomed in this conversation. I expect the minimum of substance in the responses here. Hymns won't do it either, Kevin.

The problem is your A then B constructs are not LDS constructs. They are YOURS and they are FALSE. I do not know how you can expect anything when you are coming from a fantasy position of your own. Try listening and responding to what is posted instead of responding to your own straw men.

[Alvino]

Let me try since selek doesn't seem to be getting through. You have not exhibit that you actually know what "us guys" actually believe. You keep propping up YOUR straw men as our beliefs. Stating that we don't believe your caricatures is EXACTLY the POINT. You are tilting at windmills and don't seem to be able to acknowledge it.

Of course to you it may be a logical conclusion you are using faulty data from which to draw your conclusion. there is an old computer programers term you may want to memorize. It is GIGO, Garbage in garbage out.

"You are wrong" is not an acceptable response. I'm taking the time to offer reasons and I expect you to offer me the same courtesy.

What am I getting wrong? What particular points of what I'm saying Mormons do NOT believe and are critical for making my case null.

If you believe it was justice that we be "put in jail" because of our debt of sin, no matter how small the sins that made us fall short from the glory of God, then you consider human who sin (all except Jesus) worthy of such punishment. That's the same Protestants think humans deserve just that they are more spoken about it.

[Alvino]

The problem is your A then B constructs are not LDS constructs. They are YOURS and they are FALSE. I do not know how you can expect anything when you are coming from a fantasy position of your own. Try listening and responding to what is posted instead of responding to your own straw men.

Moderators, can you do something about ERayR when all he's doing is saying "you are wrong" with no reasons?

[ERayR]

"You are wrong" is not an acceptable response. I'm taking the time to offer reasons and I expect you to offer me the same courtesy.

What am I getting wrong? What particular points of what I'm saying Mormons do NOT believe and are critical for making my case null.

selek didn't just tell you that you were wrong he told you why you were wrong. Because you have chosen to ignore what his posts plainly laid out for you I see no reason to waste my time in repetition. Go back through this thread and read selek's posts. This time don't just skim read for comprehension.

[ERayR]

Moderators, can you do something about ERayR when all he's doing is saying "you are wrong" with no reasons?

Moderators please note I am addressing Alvino's reasoned "conclusions. He just doesn't like the message.

[selek1]

What I'm claiming is that this belief is a logical conclusion from what you guys actually believe. Stating that, "We don't believe this" misses the point

In other words, we have to believe it because YOU say so, and those of us who actually live the faith day in and day out are just too stupid to comprehend the brilliance of your analysis.

Silly me, I thought you were interested in a discussion of what we believe.

Instead, you're here proclaiming the Gospel According to Alvino.

When you are interested in having a genuine discussion, I am willing to entertain the effort.

So long as you are here to cry repentance unto this people and proselyte for your own, unique Gospel, I will not waste my time with you.

Nor can I (in good conscience) advise any of my fellow Latter-day Saints to do so.

[Alvino]

selek didn't just tell you that you were wrong he told you why you were wrong. Because you have chosen to ignore what his posts plainly laid out for you I see no reason to waste my time in repetition. Go back through this thread and read selek's posts. This time don't just skim read for comprehension.

Oh, selek1 is fine and gives good responses. You pretty much just say "You are wrong. You make up stuff" and don't explain what it is you agree with selek1 or if you do, why, or any other reason for anything else of relevance.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

In other words, we have to believe it because YOU say so, and those of us who actually live the faith day in and day out are just too stupid to comprehend the brilliance of your analysis.

You guys, what's wrong with you? Seriously. Do you really not know what a logical consequence is? I'm not saying my 'analysis' (really, just an observation) is brilliant, nor that those who live the faith are stupid (I would be calling plenty of family members stupid), and I'm not saying you should believe what I'm saying is a logical implication.

Silly me, I thought you were interested in a discussion of what we believe.

...again, I'm pointing out a logical implication of what you actually believe. Some may believe it but don't really notice they do.

Instead, you're here proclaiming the Gospel According to Alvino.

When you are interested in having a genuine discussion, I am willing to entertain the effort.

So long as you are here to cry repentance unto this people and proselyte for your own, unique Gospel, I will not waste my time with you.

Nor can I (in good conscience) advise any of my fellow Latter-day Saints to do so.

OK, have a good one. I'll still respond to the post I said I was going to respond by you.

[Alvino]

I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me,

Confused at the grace that so fully He proffers me;

I tremble to know that for me He was crucified,

That for me, a sinner, He suffered, He bled and died.

O it is wonderful that He should care for me

Enough to die for me!

O it is wonderful, wonderful to me!

I marvel that He would descend from His throne divine

To rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine;

That He should extend His great love unto such as I,

Sufficient to own, to redeem, and to justify.

I think of His side, pierced and bleeding to pay the debt,

Such mercy, such love and devotion can I forget?

No, no! I will praise and adore at the mercy seat,

And testify all my desires He doth fully meet.

(from LDS Hymnal)

Sounds like grace.

Good! So, what is the justice that is talked about in Alma 42:15, Kevin? Care to respond to that? What was the just thing that should have happened to us if Christ hadn't come to intervene out of mercy?

Edited August 14, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Yes, some Saints believe that this is a logical extrapolation of LDS theology (based primarily on their interpretation of the King Follett Discourse).

Unfortunately, it is neither definitive nor doctrinal- and the KFD is, in many respects- suspect..

I agree with you but I still mentioned it (and other things) to try to preemptively address what I thought some minds would have thought. If you don't think that, that's fine. The problems I mentioned still stand, though, regardless of this doctrine.

This assumes two things: first, that your opinion carrier any weight in matters eternal (I disagree), and second, that our Heavenly Father is obligated to follow the same plan as any predecessors.

While that may be a logical extrapolation (given one's assumptions), it is by no means a certaintly.

I agree. I didn't say it was a certainty, just that it looks very hard to see how God could not follow such a plan if it was a plan so old and followed by so many other gods before Him.

The keys words are "might very well be". This gives away the fact that you are speculating.

This line of reasoning is a guess. Whether or not it is a reasonable or educated guess remains to be seen.

I wasn't trying to guess anything. I'm saying your answer doesn't answer the question because it leaves several other plausible solutions open. Blah, just forget it.

In all actuality, I don't believe it matters whether the plan is original to our Heavenely Father or part of an eternal pattern- it is the covenant to which we are bound.

I agree it doesn't matter whether the plan is original or not. I was speaking to people who may believe that. If you don't, good for you!

I don't see the contradiction that you and Zerinus are proclaiming so lovingly.

As I understand the doctrine and history (and as I have already explained), we had two three choices in the Pre-Existance: God's Plan, Satan's Plan, or the status quo.

Satan's Plan was rejected (more or less summarily) because it destroyed human agency and thus thwarted God's intention to bring about an exalted generation.

God's Plan (sans a Savior) would result in that mature, independent species- but it had the side effect of cutting us off from God in an eternal sense- unless a means by which justice could be satisfied were provided and we could be redeemed.

God's plan required a Savior.

By voluntarily covenanting with us in the Plan of Salvation, God obligated himself to provide one.

Having shaken hands, made the promise, inked the deal, etc. God could not, in justice, renege.

You didn't see it? OK, here it is again:

"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 (as you, selek1, believe), 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."

You say that it was unjust for God not to pay this debt and send Christ down because he had agreed already to send it and that we came down to Earth because we knew this human experience wasn't going to be a spiritual suicide mission. If this is true and God agreed to pay the debt of sin, then it is unjust for us to pay the consequences of our sin, since God agreed he was going to do it. But Alma 42:15 and other verses say that it was justice that we pay and that Christ payed justice and forgave us in mercy, which is contradictory to saying that it would have been unjust for us to pay for something Christ and God had agreed to pay.

We were condemned to be separated from God forever because of God's justice (Alma 42:14). That is, it was just that we be separated from His presence... But you say that it was NOT just since God had already agreed to send His Son to pay for such debt to justice? How can God's justice be that we be separated from Him when He had agreed that he was going to send a Savior and when, if he didn't send Him, he would be incurring in an injustice (since to not do something he agreed to do would be unjust)?

I am willing to state plainly that it is a logical impossibility- like God creating a rock too big for him to lift or microwaving a burrito too hot for him to eat it.

OK.

This point is contrary to LDS theology.

LDS belief, in fact, postulates that sin is not in fact, an inevitable and irreducable fact of human existence.

Is this verse false?

Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

What it says is that all have come short of the glory of God; therefore, it is impossible that someone does NOT fall short of the glory of God, if this statement is true. What I just said might look like a fallacy but it isn't. Look at it closer. That statement assures us that we all will fall short of the glory of God. If this is true, then it means you can't NOT fall short of the glory of God.

I'm sorry- but this is your construction, not ours.

I have already contradicted it, twice- and the assumed harshness inherit to the paradigm- twice.

I feel no need to defend your interpretation- save to say that it does not accurately reflect LDS belief or practice.

Really? I thought I was going pretty mainstream there:

2 Nephi 9:19 "O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment."

If there is no difference between "the devil, "death", "hell", and "that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment" in Mormonism and in Protestantism, then both views of what humans deserve for their sins, no matter how much good they do and how petty their sins, is the same. Mormonism isn't less cruel in what it says regarding what ALL human beings deserve, but it is more merciful in regards to what Christ's atonement can do.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Alvino

[Alvino]

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.

By the way, interesting factoid for those who think, as you say here, Storm Rider, that whatever God does is just, meaning that God determines what is just and what isn’t… God determining what is just means that he could have made it so that we be forgiven for our sins without Christ dying because, after all, he could have chosen THAT to be justice. That is, He could have chosen that His Son didn’t have to die for justice to be met since HE could chose that it was justice that we be forgiven without any sacrifice from Christ. That would mean Christ had to die only because God wanted Him to, not because of anything else.

...but I digress.

[KevinG]

It helps to understand condemnation and damnation as natural consequences to sin.

The LDS believe that returning to the presence of our Father in Heaven and becoming Joint Heirs with Christ is central to our eternal goal. The gospel plan allows us to do this while retaining our God given agency (to choose right from wrong). Knowing we would be human and sin we needed a Savior to atone for our shortcomings and sins. Without this plan we would have been forever cast out from the presence of our Father in Heaven, impure and unable to return.

Foreknowledge of the need for a Savior is not the same as being created sinful.

[USU78]

The "promise" is irrelevant to the question.

This, of course, ignores the very important issue of covenant: He covenants with [promises] us that He will do as He says, even though there's no basis upon which to conclude that we are in a position to hold Him to His covenant [promise]. He promises He will provide a Savior. And He follows through on His promise, even though He, morally and ethically as we understand such things, is not truly bound by anything other than His own integrity.

That we can rely on His integrity, born of His love, is what is so awe-inspiring about the whole thing.

His promise irrelevant to His mercy?

Stunningly ignorant.

[Alvino]

It helps to understand condemnation and damnation as natural consequences to sin.

The LDS believe that returning to the presence of our Father in Heaven and becoming Joint Heirs with Christ is central to our eternal goal. The gospel plan allows us to do this while retaining our God given agency (to choose right from wrong). Knowing we would be human and sin we needed a Savior to atone for our shortcomings and sins. Without this plan we would have been forever cast out from the presence of our Father in Heaven, impure and unable to return.

Foreknowledge of the need for a Savior is not the same as being created sinful.

Answer the question, please, KevinG. What is the "justice of God" that is talked about in Alma 42:14 and the "demands of justice" of Alma 42:15?

It wasn't that we just couldn't, as a matter of nature, return to God. It was that God's justice was that we do NOT return to Him because of our sins. If you think otherwise then you are ignoring your own scriptures.

Indeed, the whole idea of needing a Savior was precisely to meet these demands of God's justice that God had over us. In other words, it was God's justice of what humans deserve that we be condemned, no matter how much of a St. Francis of Assisi you are, to "[...]that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment." (2 Ne. 9:19) And that, my friend, is what many Mormons think is a cruel view of Protestants of what humans deserve. In reality, they are one and the same.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Alvino