Sister Oscarson's Talk

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Blood atonement put a hard limit on the ability of the atonement to wash away some sins. And the idea that you could secure guaranteed exaltation for you and your family simply by marrying the prophet bypassed the atonement altogether. 

By that same logic you can argue that dying before reaching accountability is bypassing the atonement. It would be false but you could make that argument. In fact you could use the same argument that having your election made sure bypasses the atonement. Again, wrong, but sounds good.

[salgare]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Hey, I resemble that remark!

You know how I feel you about you good friend.

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

By that same logic you can argue that dying before reaching accountability is bypassing the atonement. It would be false but you could make that argument. In fact you could use the same argument that having your election made sure bypasses the atonement. Again, wrong, but sounds good.

Those are both arguable. In the case of kids who die before 8, I believe the idea is that the atonement is applied automatically to them. Regarding the second anointing, yes, it does seem to bypass the atonement to some extent, but perhaps not so completely as the idea of one's entire family being saved based on a single marriage. 

[igonzals]

When Sister Oscarson finished the talk though she said thruths I finally had with a bad taste. I don't know how to explain that. And the bad taste was about key modern concerns. ¿Do we know very well other religions? (My experience is an absolute NO) ¿What kind of diversity can exist in an organization that promotes that socialize aspect of community seem to be less important? And if we face the millenium come fast ¿this approach is useful or effective?. Same thing happen to me with last talk of elder Oaks.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Those are both arguable. In the case of kids who die before 8, I believe the idea is that the atonement is applied automatically to them. Regarding the second anointing, yes, it does seem to bypass the atonement to some extent, but perhaps not so completely as the idea of one's entire family being saved based on a single marriage.

It is not an issue of bypassing the atonement.  But the three examples raised are interesting.
The principles in all three cases are very simple:

1. Children under the age of accountability are not accountable for their sins and so either the sin is not really sin and has no penalty or the penalty for the broken law falls under the atonement (or possibly the parents).  The atonement is not bypassed, but responsibility for actions is applied differently.

2. In the case of second anointings, or to be more precise, calling and election, the doctrine is that to see the Savior and then reject him by committing serious willful sin is to crucify him anew.  And then there remains no more atonement.

• Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

Notice it says knowledge, not faith.  Once the heavens are opened and the Savior is revealed.  Which means the penalty for that sin must be paid personally.  Just as prior to the atonement, many sins in the OT were punishable by death.  See also D&C 42:18-19.

• And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. (Joseph Fielding Smith Doc. of Sal. 1:136)

3. In the case of being saved by sealing to family, Joseph taught "“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother."  This does not bypass the atonement nor does it ensure salvation. The sealing based on marriage that saves an entire family is a very different topic, but has more to do with exaltation of a family kingdom than salvation in God's kingdom.

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is not an issue of bypassing the atonement.  But the three examples raised are interesting.
The principles in all three cases are very simple:

1. Children under the age of accountability are not accountable for their sins and so either the sin is not really sin and has no penalty or the penalty for the broken law falls under the atonement (or possibly the parents).  The atonement is not bypassed, but responsibility for actions is applied differently.

2. In the case of second anointings, or to be more precise, calling and election, the doctrine is that to see the Savior and then reject him by committing serious willful sin is to crucify him anew.  And then there remains no more atonement.

• Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

Notice it says knowledge, not faith.  Once the heavens are opened and the Savior is revealed.  Which means the penalty for that sin must be paid personally.  Just as prior to the atonement, many sins in the OT were punishable by death.  See also D&C 42:18-19.

• And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. (Joseph Fielding Smith Doc. of Sal. 1:136)

3. In the case of being saved by sealing to family, Joseph taught "“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother."  This does not bypass the atonement nor does it ensure salvation. The sealing based on marriage that saves an entire family is a very different topic, but has more to do with exaltation of a family kingdom than salvation in God's kingdom.

Its fun to read this, and I respect your vast knowledge of Mormon teachings.  This is not to be disrespectful, but just a funny thought came to mind as I read through your post.  

I can't help but think of the highly complex role playing game that my friend is developing. The rules are extremely complicated and only for people that are really devoted and into these kinds of games.  Each game takes multiple hours to play, if not days to completely finish.  It takes years to master these kinds of games and there are complex answers to every conceivable scenario that he writes down in the rule book.  He's currently going on version 100+ of this rule book because every time he tests the game with a group of people, new situations come up that weren't covered in the original and he has to amend the rules to accommodate that different scenario.  

That's my insight for the day.  Mormonism is like a highly complex role playing game...

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Calm]

Try math and physics sometimes.

Being complex does not indicate one way or another the level of truth.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, salgare said:

true it seems.  JLHProf is a heretic by todays correlation standards, right?   And MFB is beyond progressive, being Nuanced (New) Mormonism.  This board alone covers a large spectrum.

I keep telling him he is a heretic because he believes too much and I am because I believe to little.

[Coreyb]

On April 3, 2016 at 5:51 PM, JLHPROF said:

While this was nothing new, the directness with which she stated it was refreshing, especially in our current religion climate where cultural mormonism and a relativistic approach to the gospel abounds.
I always love it every couple of conference sessions when a speaker makes clear the uniqueness of the restored gospel.
One of my favorite, most quoted Conference talks is President Hunter's " Let us plan for and teach and plead with our children to marry in the house of the Lord. Let us reaffirm more vigorously than we ever have in the past that it does matter where you marry and by what authority you are pronounced man and wife."

 

I am disappointed JLHPROF. I was hoping you were going to talk about Sis O. calling the church "the kingdom of God". Of course it isn't, and you of all people should know that. It may be part of the Kingdom, or a precursor to it, but the two terms are not synonymous. As for the concern that Mormons are treating "the church" as just a "Sunday church", that's probably because it has slowly become one when originally it was not at all

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I keep telling him he is a heretic because he believes too much and I am because I believe to little.

True story.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Coreyb said:

I am disappointed JLHPROF. I was hoping you were going to talk about Sis O. calling the church "the kingdom of God". Of course it isn't, and you of all people should know that. It may be part of the Kingdom, or a precursor to it, but the two terms are not synonymous. As for the concern that Mormons are treating "the church" as just a "Sunday church", that's probably because it has slowly become one when originally it was not at all

Oh, I know that.  The Church is not the Kingdom.  The Kingdom is not the Church.

But common practice among the members is to conflate the two.  And apparently I'm already heretical enough.