A Question About The Atonement

[jchristopher]

Well, I did say "might be the case"

Of course there is more to the atonement in other Christian religions than my admittedly simplistic statement.

I just needed to differentiate why in Mormonism eternal laws make Gods, God is not the source of eternal laws.

Do you believe eternal laws naturally come into existence without any creator?

[JLHPROF]

Do you believe eternal laws naturally come into existence without any creator?

 

Ummm...what part of 'eternal' is confusing?  They have always existed.  They are the principles on which existence operates.  To say they came into existence is to make them laws for a specific situation.  They are eternal, without beginning or end.

They are the laws by which the universe, God, creation and everything operate.

 

But as I said, this is my opinion.  Nobody has to agree.

[jchristopher]

I'm not sure this is doctrine. It appears President Hinckley was unsure too.

I don't know of a single scripture which states this, but I know of a number that suggest something quite different.

I personally do not believe this doctrine. For me God is and always has been God. We can share in his attributes by qualifying to join the family business (Moses 1:39), but we will never be "God" to anyone. He will always be their God as well as ours.

I know I am out of step with many in the church regarding this issue, but I find support for my view from the scriptures, including and especially the Book of Mormon.

But I digress somewhat. Surely God is all-knowing. Therefore he has a perfect foreknowledge and would not create laws to which he binds himself as a matter of honour, knowing that he would then have to require his only begotten Son to suffer such agony in order to uphold the law he set.

Some people are calling it "cosmic child-abuse" and I can see their point.

I just wish I could get my head around this because it really bothers me.

"We will never be God to anyone."

Do you believe that we will never be able to have our own eternal family like God the father did? To parent undeveloped intelligences in creating for them spiritual bodies and then creating and directing an eternal plan of happiness for them?

[Alan]

"We will never be God to anyone."

Do you believe that we will never be able to have our own eternal family like God the father did? To parent undeveloped intelligences in creating for them spiritual bodies and then creating and directing an eternal plan of happiness for them?

 

I think our role will be akin to that of Adam.

He had a role in creation, was subordinate to the Father (and the Son, but that is a different question) and his offspring pray to and worship the same person he did.

If we establish eternal families etc, I believe they (our offspring) will worship the same God we do. They, like us, will pray to the Father; not to us. We will not be their God, just as Adam is not ours.

[JLHPROF]

I think our role will be akin to that of Adam.

He had a role in creation, was subordinate to the Father (and the Son, but that is a different question) and his offspring pray to and worship the same person he did.

If we establish eternal families etc, I believe they (our offspring) will worship the same God we do. They, like us, will pray to the Father; not to us. We will not be their God, just as Adam is not ours.

 

I am curious what scriptures or prophetic teachings would lead you to this belief.  It is not what the prophets have taught in my understanding.

[Alan]

I am curious what scriptures or prophetic teachings would lead you to this belief.  It is not what the prophets have taught in my understanding.

 

It's just what I think.

Adam's extensive role in the creation is well documented in the endowment ceremony. It seems clear from what BY taught that Adam has a role in our salvation that we don't know much about. Brigham had a stab at it as we know, but the fact he played such a significant role in the creation and was given dominion and made lord over all the earth, is a pretty big clue.

The rest of my views are speculative, though there is much scripture to support the "always been God from all eternity to all eternity" position. Therefore, if the prophets are right (and we must admit the possibility they may not be) about eternal increase etc, then I see my thoughts as a reasonable explanation. It works for me anyway.

[teddyaware]

I think our role will be akin to that of Adam.

He had a role in creation, was subordinate to the Father (and the Son, but that is a different question) and his offspring pray to and worship the same person he did.

If we establish eternal families etc, I believe they (our offspring) will worship the same God we do. They, like us, will pray to the Father; not to us. We will not be their God, just as Adam is not ours.

Do you believe you can harmonize your ideas with the following verses from the Doctrine and Covenants?

If so, could you please demonstrate how these verses establish your thesis?

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

[Alan]

Do you believe you can harmonize your ideas with the following verses from the Doctrine and Covenants?

If so, could you please demonstrate how these verses establish your thesis?

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

 

Actually, quite easily.

"Then shall they be gods". Note the lower case "g". It doesn't say they shall be God.

I kind of see it like joining the family business. We join the board of directors and are given responsibilities for certain areas of activity. The Father is still the CEO. He still has the majority shareholding and we will never replace him. The business expands as more join the board and activity increases. The "profits" increase but the credit (glory) still goes to the CEO. We don't get the glory - that's what Lucifer was after. We will be anonymous to the "customers" (those in mortality) but they will know about the CEO (the Father) and so will communicate (pray) to him.

I suspect this is the current arrangement. The Father we pray to is more like our great-grandfather (many times over), but is our literal Father in the same way Abraham is.

[JLHPROF]

It's just what I think.

Adam's extensive role in the creation is well documented in the endowment ceremony. It seems clear from what BY taught that Adam has a role in our salvation that we don't know much about. Brigham had a stab at it as we know, but the fact he played such a significant role in the creation and was given dominion and made lord over all the earth, is a pretty big clue.

The rest of my views are speculative, though there is much scripture to support the "always been God from all eternity to all eternity" position. Therefore, if the prophets are right (and we must admit the possibility they may not be) about eternal increase etc, then I see my thoughts as a reasonable explanation. It works for me anyway.

 

 

Actually, quite easily.

"Then shall they be gods". Note the lower case "g". It doesn't say they shall be God.

I kind of see it like joining the family business. We join the board of directors and are given responsibilities for certain areas of activity. The Father is still the CEO. He still has the majority shareholding and we will never replace him. The business expands as more join the board and activity increases. The "profits" increase but the credit (glory) still goes to the CEO. We don't get the glory - that's what Lucifer was after. We will be anonymous to the "customers" (those in mortality) but they will know about the CEO (the Father) and so will communicate (pray) to him.

I suspect this is the current arrangement. The Father we pray to is more like our great-grandfather (many times over), but is our literal Father in the same way Abraham is.

 

I find this view too limiting and a little illogical.  However, if you also believe that God has always been God and is not an exalted man as Joseph taught then I suppose it makes sense.  But if you believe God is an exalted man and the father of our spirits and his goal is to have us become like him, then it only makes sense that we become Gods in every sense of the word.  Puppies become dogs, kittens become cats, and God's children become Gods.  It's in our very makeup.

[MiserereNobis]

Do you believe you can harmonize your ideas with the following verses from the Doctrine and Covenants?

If so, could you please demonstrate how these verses establish your thesis?

 

Ah, teddyaware and his verses -- you're like the protestant that won't leave us Catholics alone with our "ignorance" of the Bible   (please read tone as light-hearted... it is endearing that you are always quoting scripture)

 

19  and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—

 

Interesting.  In Catholicism (and I think mainstream Christianity, but one never knows about those non-denominational folk) thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers are different classifications of angels from the 9 Choirs of Angels.  For example, in Dante's Paradisio, he ranked the 9 levels of angels as follows:  1. Seraphim, 2. Cherubim, 3. Thrones, 4. Dominations, 5. Virtues, 6. Powers, 7. Principalities, 8. Archangels, 9. Angels.

 

There's a wikipedia article on the subject you can consult.

[thatjimguy]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

 

 

The way I see it, it is about the evolution of man's idea of religion.

 

At first we sacrificed people, then subsituted that for animals when that practice seemed barbaric, then the idea of animal sacrifice got changed to Jesus' sacrifice.

 

Before the idea of Jesus' sacrifice, people were under the power of preists. And like all men they screwed it up after awhile. An example would be that The Pharasees became so strict no one could do much of anything, and other corrupt stuff happened along the way. We all know the stories of people abusing power of preisthoods.

 

I think the original idea of Jesus Christ would be to free man from the rule of others in a religious sense.

 

So my question would be if that were so in my mind, how can I justify the LDS preisthood (a title that I, myself, hold?) I guess I would say that it will work as long as the holders of the preisthood are righteous and repentant when they do wrong.

[Alan]

  ..... an exalted man as Joseph taught.....

 

It isn't in the scriptures.

It was quoted in the King Follett discourse and the last time I checked that had not been canonised.

Joseph said a lot of things, but I honestly believe that only those included in the scriptures through the exercise of common consent are relevant and can be trusted to be true.

[mfbukowski]

Fascinating insights from everyone.

One theme which seems to run through the discussion on here is that, in effect, God is subject to eternal law.

I have a real problem with that. I see it as the other way around - eternal law is subject to God. It is God who makes the laws, not the laws that make or unmake God.

I think this is the nub of the issue. If the laws are subject to God (as I believe they are) then I am struggling to understand the need for the atonement. I can understand the need for the atonement if God is subject to law, but to me at least, that makes Him less than God; and I'm really very uncomfortable with that.

There is a compromise to both positions, and it is that God is subject to laws which he himself voluntarily accepts to be subject to.

 

We obey the Word of Wisdom voluntarily- it is a law we voluntarily accept for ourselves.  It is not a "law of the universe" and we have the agency to break it if we would want to. but to break it would be to violate covenants we have made which are more important than a cup of coffee or a cigarette.

 

So too with God.

 

On this view, God can be the creator of principles we see as "eternal" which he has also voluntarily accepted, without those actually being some kind of law set up by another being "greater" than Him.

 

If God would break his promises or the laws he has created, he would be contradicting himself and therefore cease to be God.

 

So God organized the laws of the universe AND observes them, both.  So he can be seen as being both immanent and transcendent at the same time depending on your perspective.

[MiserereNobis]

There is a compromise to both positions, and it is that God is subject to laws which he himself voluntarily accepts to be subject to.

 

We obey the Word of Wisdom voluntarily- it is a law we voluntarily accept for ourselves.  It is not a "law of the universe" and we have the agency to break it if we would want to. but to break it would be to violate covenants we have made which are more important than a cup of coffee or a cigarette.

 

So too with God.

 

On this view, God can be the creator of principles we see as "eternal" which he has also voluntarily accepted, without those actually being some kind of law set up by another being "greater" than Him.

 

If God would break his promises or the laws he has created, he would be contradicting himself and therefore cease to be God.

 

So God organized the laws of the universe AND observes them, both.  So he can be seen as being both immanent and transcendent at the same time depending on your perspective.

 

I like it, especially the part of God being both immanent and transcendent at the same time

 

God does not break his own rules, but he may have sub-clauses in those rules that we don't know about.

[mfbukowski]

No, I'm sorry.  In ANY other Christian religion this might be the case.  But Mormonism has a somewhat unique teaching in that God has not always been God.  In order to become God (an exalted man) he had to follow the same laws and ordinances we do.  This means that the laws had to be in place - that they are eternal and all who would be Gods must be subject to them.

 

But I can see how if you believe instead that the law is subject to God then the atonement would make little sense - God could just negate the effects of the law when we sin through his mercy.  The atonement would be unnecessary.

Yet there is a universal imperative- the survival and good of humanity as a whole- THAT becomes a universal principle which all humans must find "good", or else the human race would perish.

 

So in organizing humanity, God gave us that law, in a sense, and in another, it has always existed because it is really a tautology. 

 

Human Survival = "good" is true because for humans it cannot be false. 

 

Were it to be false, there would be no humans to believe the principle and therefore no good or evil.

 

Some may believe that good floats around as an eternal principle independent of people- if so, where is the principle?

 

How can anything be said to "exist" - a human concept and a human word, if there is no human to classify it as "existing"?

 

Remember God is a Human.  So to say that Good exists independent of humans is to say that Good exists independent of God.

 

That is what separates us from the Neoplatonic sectarian version of false "Christianity"

Edited March 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I like it, especially the part of God being both immanent and transcendent at the same time

 

God does not break his own rules, but he may have sub-clauses in those rules that we don't know about.

Abso....uh, Exactl.......uh....

 

Yes, I agree!    I am sure he has all kinds of loopholes we know nothing about. 

 

Wormholes? 

 

But seriously, human language is of course deficient.  So we can use either word- "immanent" or "transcendent" depending on the context.  Clearly God transcends humanity, - I cannot walk through walls or speak to the heart of people all over the world simulatneously- yet we have the same essential divine "nature" as Christ whom I see as a perfected human.

 

I choose Christ because I think Catholics can understand a perfected human more in the person of Christ than his Father- but of course for us, the same goes for both of them

Edited March 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

That is what separates us from the Neoplatonic sectarian version of false "Christianity"

 

Now, now, now, it wouldn't be nice of me to call Mormonism the (post-)Modern American sectarian version of false "Christianity"...

 

(what an excellent example of paralipsis!) 

 

 

(and I even used a BYU link for that!)

[Calm]

 

 

God does not break his own rules, but he may have sub-clauses in those rules that we don't know about.

It's the fine print that gets you every time. ;

[jaxenro]

It isn't in the scriptures.

It was quoted in the King Follett discourse and the last time I checked that had not been canonised.

Joseph said a lot of things, but I honestly believe that only those included in the scriptures through the exercise of common consent are relevant and can be trusted to be true.

No but King Follett was fairly well documented and has been in several Church publications from the Teachings of Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith to the Ensign. Christ says plainly he does nothing but what He has seen the Father do.

[mfbukowski]

Now, now, now, it wouldn't be nice of me to call Mormonism the (post-)Modern American sectarian version of false "Christianity"...

 

(what an excellent example of paralipsis!) 

 

 

(and I even used a BYU link for that!)

Sorry but hey we get that all the time, so frankly it doesn't bother me.

 

Sorry if it bothered you.  Remember your church teaches we worship a "different Christ", and of course they are right I suppose. 

 

But my lips are definitely not paralyzed, or sumptin like 'at. 

[Gervin]

Interesting.  In Catholicism (and I think mainstream Christianity, but one never knows about those non-denominational folk) thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers are different classifications of angels from the 9 Choirs of Angels.  For example, in Dante's Paradisio, he ranked the 9 levels of angels as follows:  1. Seraphim, 2. Cherubim, 3. Thrones, 4. Dominations, 5. Virtues, 6. Powers, 7. Principalities, 8. Archangels, 9. Angels.

10. Charlie's Angels

11. Hells Angels

12. Angels with Dirty Faces ("Let's go and say a prayer for a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could.")

13. Angels in the Outfield

[teddyaware]

Actually, quite easily.

"Then shall they be gods". Note the lower case "g". It doesn't say they shall be God.

I kind of see it like joining the family business. We join the board of directors and are given responsibilities for certain areas of activity. The Father is still the CEO. He still has the majority shareholding and we will never replace him. The business expands as more join the board and activity increases. The "profits" increase but the credit (glory) still goes to the CEO. We don't get the glory - that's what Lucifer was after. We will be anonymous to the "customers" (those in mortality) but they will know about the CEO (the Father) and so will communicate (pray) to him.

I suspect this is the current arrangement. The Father we pray to is more like our great-grandfather (many times over), but is our literal Father in the same way Abraham is.

Of course, God the Father and Christ will always be at our head in the Patriarchal order of things. This almost goes without saying, as every knowledgeable Latter-day knows that though we may become gods we will never surpass our God in glory, might and dominion; Joseph Smith teaches precisely the same principal in the King Follett discourse. This is nothing new but has been part and parcel of Mormonism 101 almost from the beginning of the Restoration. 

 

But on to your interpretation of D&C 132: So you don't believe we worship the actual Father of our spirits? Do we worship, for example, the 8th great grandfather of our spirits instead? Why? If we become perfect, as the scripture says, why this hesitation, fear and apparent embarrassment to admit the obvious. And here once again is the obvious:

... which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever (just as it is said of God).

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end (just as it is said of God); therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting (just as it is said of God), because they continue; then shall they be above all (just as it is said of God), because all things are subject unto them (just as it is said of God). Then shall they be gods, because they have all power (just as it is said of God), and the angels are subject unto them (just as it is said of God).

 

So all this being the case, why the hesitation to admit it's not at all strange or illogical to think that the spirit children of celestial parents endowed with the fullness of eternal glorify should honor and reverence their parents in the same way we earthlings reverence and honor our Heavenly Parents? Where in the above excerpt does it indicate these fully glorified celestial beings are in any way deficient that should not be honored and revered as the very gods they are?

 

Finally, there is no robbing of God's glory in this divinely ordained process of deification. It is God Himself who bestows upon the fully faithful and valiant an infinite and eternal fullness of the Holy Spirit because they are joint heirs with Christ in all he possesses, including godhood.

Edited March 19, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

It isn't in the scriptures.

It was quoted in the King Follett discourse and the last time I checked that had not been canonised.

Joseph said a lot of things, but I honestly believe that only those included in the scriptures through the exercise of common consent are relevant and can be trusted to be true.

 

Last I checked the scriptures weren't the only source of doctrine that we accept.  Mormons get their doctrines from many places outside of scriptures.  And when it's contained in official church publications, in the teachings of pretty much every prophet and apostle for the first 150 years of the church (and more), and the principles it alludes to have been expounded on and integrated into other doctrines, then the fact that the originating discourse isn't canonized becomes less relevant.

 

Joseph's teaching that God is an exalted man may have originated in the King Follett discourse but that doctrine has been interwoven through all of Mormonism in various forms, with allusions and expansions galore throughout everything from D&C 132 to the Temple Endowment.  The doctrine is as true a part of Mormonism as the individuality of the Godhead members.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting.  In Catholicism (and I think mainstream Christianity, but one never knows about those non-denominational folk) thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers are different classifications of angels from the 9 Choirs of Angels.

In Mormonism, that phrase is usually taken to mean, roughly, "civil authority"

 

Go figure.  There is still enough Catholic in me to question that, but every reference I have seen to the phrase is interpreted that way.

 

I have not studied up on it though

[teddyaware]

Ah, teddyaware and his verses -- you're like the protestant that won't leave us Catholics alone with our "ignorance" of the Bible   (please read tone as light-hearted... it is endearing that you are always quoting scripture)

 

 

 

Interesting.  In Catholicism (and I think mainstream Christianity, but one never knows about those non-denominational folk) thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers are different classifications of angels from the 9 Choirs of Angels.  For example, in Dante's Paradisio, he ranked the 9 levels of angels as follows:  1. Seraphim, 2. Cherubim, 3. Thrones, 4. Dominations, 5. Virtues, 6. Powers, 7. Principalities, 8. Archangels, 9. Angels.

 

There's a wikipedia article on the subject you can consult.

The reason why I quoted from Doctrine and Covenants 132 is because it plainly declares the exalted will, "be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." So in Mormonism, the enthronement of the exalted, set forth and promised in Revelation 3, is a divine kingship over, above and beyond the angels 

Edited March 19, 2014 by teddyaware