Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[Calm]

I'm sorry you see those examples as the same as what we have been discussing, I think they are quite different to be honest. To prove I am not just saying that to change the subject, here's one example. Animal sacrifice in the temple was a sign or "shadow" of things to come in the New Covenant. A sign that Christ would eventually be the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and he would complete what millions of animal sacrifices before Him were not actually completing, the atonement for sinful man. They are obsolete.

 

But it becomes clear to me you are not above changing the definition of words like eternal, and bucking scripture to keep your faith. So I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. To me, scripture and faith and doctrine are all hopelessly intertwined, and I am forced to examine diligently all seeming contradictions, and satisfy in my own mind that they are not actual contradictions. If you do not feel the need to do the same I guess we don't have much to talk about.

But if you search out circumcision and such, the scriptures describe them as everlasting covenants....and yet they were removed. Iow, you need to consider God is using terms differently than you are. Sec 19 gives us a big indication of one reason this might be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Moroni 8:18. If He is sinless now, He must have been sinless always? Do you see why I'm getting confused? 

The concept of always "or from eternity past" is not something found in scripture.

 

Let me be clear, I am not advocating that God sinned in a past life. We have no idea if he did or not. BUt if he did sin in a past life, the principals of the atonement are eternal and unchanging. We could see what the end game is for us. We beleive that we can become perfect and be like God in all his attributes. The scriptures tell us that we will sit on Christ's throne as he sits on the Father's throne. More than anything most of this is more like a theoretical doctrine. The theory allows us to see how the atonement works in full if we were to apply it to God the Father. 

 

It is sort of like math. What ever you do to one side of the equation you must do to the other.

[JLHPROF]

JLH: 

 

But it becomes clear to me you are not above changing the definition of words like eternal, and bucking scripture to keep your faith. So I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. To me, scripture and faith and doctrine are all hopelessly intertwined, and I am forced to examine diligently all seeming contradictions, and satisfy in my own mind that they are not actual contradictions. If you do not feel the need to do the same I guess we don't have much to talk about.

 

No, I am just inclined to match my interpretation of scripture and the meaning of words with those of the prophets who actually spoke with God face to face instead of the limited understanding of man.

[Avatar4321]

I am not. The reason the discussion came to that point is because I stated I believed doctrine and scripture must be consistent. Therefore for me, Isaiah 43:10 cast doubt upon the Lorenzo Snow couplet, because I believe the Bible more than I believe Snow.

and yet Jesus backs up what President Snow taught. Why should we believe your interpretation of the Bible over what Jesus and His Prophets clearly taught?

[Pahoran]

Yea sorry, i posted before you edited. You're too fast

 

You're twisting what I said about the couplet a little. I didn't say Christ ever sinned, I don't believe he did. The couplet says God was like we are now. I guess maybe you are implying that doesn't mean in every single way. In that case why would you assume that we can become like Him in every single way. 

 

I think that fair post is a non-answer. Furthermore, I think it does matter to ask that question, did God sin?

 

Yes, it is a popular talking point among EV Protestant anti-Mormons.  Among Latter-day Saints: not so much.

 

And I have yet to meet a plausible Latter-day Saint who is suprised, much less shocked and deeply troubled, by the thoroughly scriptural teaching that the ultimate purpose of the Plan of Salvation is to enable us to become like God.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[mass168]

Well I suppose my question has been answered with a resounding no. No one here seems very concerned that scripture appears to contradict eternal progression. I don't understand quite why though, I have heard more extreme rationalizations through this conversation than I have heard to date. Although  I know that doesn't mean much to any of you, I promise that's a whole lot.

 

It will take a lot more faith than I have apparently to look at the words of Moroni 8:18 and believe the opposite of this plain and precious truth. I really thought that was the whole point of the BOM, to not have to deal with the same kind of transmission and translation issues that the Bible has. The Book has been sold to me as a way to hear directly from the prophet's mouth, and by extension the mouth of God, in the simplest and most textually sound way possible. Well when we find ourselves changing dictionary definitions of English words to make doctrine fit, when they came straight from those sacred plates, I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

 

I also just cannot understand why hardly anyone (I think one person said it) is willing to take an honest look at the other side of the equation (thanks Mola) with the couplet. What does it mean to be "as man is." Do you mean on earth? Having a body? Spending a great deal of time trying to overcome sin, sometimes as if that is our sole purpose in life? Working towards exaltation? Those are all things that come to my mind quite easily. I suppose I would agree that it does not REQUIRE God to have sinned in the most technical lingual sense, but the possibility is there so strongly. Why do we not think about it? Anyways.. Back to my corner..  

[mass168]

and yet Jesus backs up what President Snow taught. Why should we believe your interpretation of the Bible over what Jesus and His Prophets clearly taught?

Where did Jesus do this? 

[mass168]

No, I am just inclined to match my interpretation of scripture and the meaning of words with those of the prophets who actually spoke with God face to face instead of the limited understanding of man.

I will say it again, you were picking and choosing. Moroni 8:18 was the words of THE prophet.

Edited December 17, 2014 by mass168

[JLHPROF]

Well I suppose my question has been answered with a resounding no. No one here seems very concerned that scripture appears to contradict eternal progression. I don't understand quite why though, I have heard more extreme rationalizations through this conversation than I have heard to date. Although  I know that doesn't mean much to any of you, I promise that's a whole lot.

 

It will take a lot more faith than I have apparently to look at the words of Moroni 8:18 and believe the opposite of this plain and precious truth. I really thought that was the whole point of the BOM, to not have to deal with the same kind of transmission and translation issues that the Bible has. The Book has been sold to me as a way to hear directly from the prophet's mouth, and by extension the mouth of God, in the simplest and most textually sound way possible. Well when we find ourselves changing dictionary definitions of English words to make doctrine fit, when they came straight from those sacred plates, I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

 

I also just cannot understand why hardly anyone (I think one person said it) is willing to take an honest look at the other side of the equation (thanks Mola) with the couplet. What does it mean to be "as man is." Do you mean on earth? Having a body? Spending a great deal of time trying to overcome sin, sometimes as if that is our sole purpose in life? Working towards exaltation? Those are all things that come to my mind quite easily. I suppose I would agree that it does not REQUIRE God to have sinned in the most technical lingual sense, but the possibility is there so strongly. Why do we not think about it? Anyways.. Back to my corner..  

Well, let's reverse this question.

Assuming the presence of an atoning Savior on his earth, why should it matter to you if God sinned.  He has promised to remember our sins no longer if we repent and the atonement paid the price.  Why should it matter what mistakes God may have made before becoming a God?  It changes nothing about our situation.

[JLHPROF]

I will say it again, you were picking and choosing. Moroni 8:18 was the words of THE prophet.

 

No, Moroni 8:18 were the words of Mormon.  Did Mormon see God face to face to gain his knowledge?  Joseph Smith did.

Edited December 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mass168]

Well, let's reverse this question.

Assuming the presence of an atoning Savior on his earth, why should it matter to you if God sinned.  He has promised to remember our sins no longer if we repent and the atonement paid the price.  Why should it matter what mistakes God may have made before becoming a God?  It changes nothing about our situation.

Because it makes no sense with other scripture. Why do we need atonement for sin in the first place? Because it offends God. Why would it offend Him if he was once like us? I cannot see Him being all self righteous and saying, oh you crazy kids down there, you are offending me greatly and I won't have it, I was way better than you. Guess we need another savior. Is that idea anywhere in scripture? 

[mass168]

No, Moroni 8:18 were the words of Mormon.  Did Mormon see God face to face to gain his knowledge?  Joseph Smith did.

They came from the mouth of the prophet into the BOM, that is the issue we are discussing. Hearing things directly from prophets. I just meant the part about God in general, as in this is all God's plan and things he wanted to restore to the Earth. 

Edited December 17, 2014 by mass168

[Stargazer]

Because it makes no sense with other scripture. Why do we need atonement for sin in the first place? Because it offends God. Why would it offend Him if he was once like us? I cannot see Him being all self righteous and saying, oh you crazy kids down there, you are offending me greatly and I won't have it, I was way better than you. Guess we need another savior. Is that idea anywhere in scripture? 

 

Is that what you're asserting?  That we need the atonement because we offend God?  That makes no sense at all.

[JLHPROF]

Because it makes no sense with other scripture. Why do we need atonement for sin in the first place? Because it offends God. Why would it offend Him if he was once like us? I cannot see Him being all self righteous and saying, oh you crazy kids down there, you are offending me greatly and I won't have it, I was way better than you. Guess we need another savior. Is that idea anywhere in scripture? 

 

Is that why you think we need an atonement for sin?  It only offends God because God is a lawful being.  The atonement is needed to pay the price of sin, to balance the scales of eternal laws, laws that have existed long before this earth.

The atonement is about paying a price, not appeasing a God.

[mass168]

Is that what you're asserting?  That we need the atonement because we offend God?  That makes no sense at all.

Absolutely, that's the reason we talked about Christ being the ultimate sacrifice for sin a ways back. What do you think the reason is?

[mass168]

Is that why you think we need an atonement for sin?  It only offends God because God is a lawful being.  The atonement is needed to pay the price of sin, to balance the scales of eternal laws, laws that have existed long before this earth.

The atonement is about paying a price, not appeasing a God.

See above Alma 45:16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

Edited December 17, 2014 by mass168

[JLHPROF]

See above

 

I see.  Still wrong.

[mass168]

I see.  Still wrong.

I see.. Well now we have found another reason then why I would assert that you don't care too much for scripture. The idea put forth through the entire Bible is that our sin offends a holy and righteous God, and only by the atonement of Christ are we able to return to His presence. 

[JLHPROF]

I see.. Well now we have found another reason then why I would assert that you don't care too much for scripture. The idea put forth through the entire Bible is that our sin offends a holy and righteous God, and only by the atonement of Christ are we able to return to His presence. 

 

The atonement is not to appease an angry God, only inasmuch as he is offended by the breaking of law as in D&C 64:13 -

And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—

 

I think it is you who do not appear to understand the scriptures or the reason behind the atonement.

Scriptural reasons for the atonement:

 

2 Nephi 2:7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

 

Alma 42:22 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance 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.

 

Alma 34

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

 

And to be fair to you, I took a quick look.  I can find lots of references to the atonement making amends for broken law but virtually nothing about it being necessary to appease God.

Even the evangelicals understand this point - http://www.kencollins.com/answers/question-13.htm, https://www.gci.org//yi/mcswain24

Edited December 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mass168]

The atonement is not to appease an angry God, only inasmuch as he is offended by the breaking of law as in D&C 64:13 -

And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—

 

I think it is you who do not appear to understand the scriptures or the reason behind the atonement.

Scriptural reasons for the atonement:

 

2 Nephi 2:7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

 

Alma 42:22 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance 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.

 

Alma 34

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

 

And to be fair to you, I took a quick look.  I can find lots of references to the atonement making amends for broken law but virtually nothing about it being necessary to appease God.

Even the evangelicals understand this point - http://www.kencollins.com/answers/question-13.htm

I appreciate that, let me take a look and respond with similar, might be tomorrow, getting late for me. I don't know who Ken Collins is, but I wouldn't be so quick to make that general statement about EV's

[mass168]

Ok I feel at risk of getting lost in this argument again and not remembering what is the important issue. I posited that our sin offends God, and that's why we need the atonement. And the reason I did this is because it makes no sense to me to think about God being a righteous and holy judge as the Bible talks about Him when he was once "as man is." Additionally, it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about God being merely the "sheriff" of universal laws rather than the original "giver" of universal laws. A God who is merely the sheriff cannot in my estimation have the power to do anything truly glorified and transcendent. He is merely living within a box created for Him by someone else at that point. I do not subscribe to this God living in a box, I think that is blasphemy.

 

See the following link for a true representation of how a great number of EV's think. This is not some rando guy, this is a comprehensive creed that has been around for hundreds of years. And yes, this is one of those creeds that Smith called an abomination. But it appears to me that people on this thread have evolved a tiny bit above rejecting all free thinking, so that is why I feel comfortable presenting it for consideration.

 

http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism

 

And yes, it is long, but clicking on "Part I: Misery," and then "Part II: Deliverance," should be sufficient to explain how the Bible describes what we are talking about. 

 

I don't believe the verses you produced on this subject support your point. If anything they support mine. Example:

 

"And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not OFFEND him who is your lawgiver"

 

Isn't "offend" the precise word I used in my original statement of the problem? Why does this verse talk about offending "him who is your lawgiver?" hmmm both are things I just said.. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by mass168

[JLHPROF]

I don't believe the verses you produced on this subject support your point. If anything they support mine. Example:

 

"And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not OFFEND him who is your lawgiver"

 

Isn't "offend" the precise word I used in my original statement of the problem? Why does this verse talk about offending "him who is your lawgiver?" hmmm both are things I just said.. 

 

It isn't the "offending God" we disagree on.  It is the WHAT is offending God.

Read the scripture carefully - it is not saying we need to repent and have the atonement because God is mad at us.  It is saying that we need it because of the breaking of the law.  It is when we are not justified in the eyes of the law - when we are in violation of justice and mercy - that God is offended.

 

And what meaning of the word offend are you applying to our God:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offend

verb (used with object)

1.

to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in:

Even the hint of prejudice offends me.

2.

to affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably.

3.

to violate or transgress (a criminal, religious, or moral law).

4.

to hurt or cause pain to.

5.

(in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways.

verb (used without object)

6.

to cause resentful displeasure; irritate, annoy, or anger:

a remark so thoughtless it can only offend.

7.

to err in conduct; commit a sin, crime, or fault.

 

In my opinion it has only a little to do with definitions #1,2, 4, or 6.

It is more directly about #3, 7.

(Obviously not 5 - offending God can't cause him to fall into sinful ways).

 

In the end, sin and the atonement is about law, and the application of justice or mercy.  It is not an issue of God's emotions.

Our sin DOES offend God in that it violates law.  But atonement is about satisfying the law (which makes God happy), not about appeasing an unhappy God.

[mass168]

Sometimes I wonder if you hear yourself talk...

 

"But atonement is about satisfying the law (which makes God happy), not about appeasing an unhappy God."

 

Is he unhappy (because we fail to fulfill the law a lot) or isn't he? 

Edited December 18, 2014 by mass168

[mass168]

And what meaning of the word offend are you applying to our God:

 

I also think that it's about mostly 3 and 7. I agree with you that the atonement satisfies the law perfectly in ways we never could. I'll even take it a step further and say it completes our repentance for us in ways we never could. I don't know where you got the idea I was disagreeing with that. 

[Jeanne]

I am playing catch up today as I have been packing for a move.  I just have one question.  Does God realize the impact of said doctrine/opinion had when it was understood by most believers that the blacks were sitting on a fence in the pre-existence..the impact being that we mortals generalized that into some sort of "black sheep" sort of thing when it was unnecessary.  I think of the many black friends that "scared me"...a cousin who was shunned for marrying a black man..and it didn't have to hurt so many people.   There are generations of LDS that have felt more than priveleged and said so.   Something is so wrong with this picture.