Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: But I still don't understand. Putting aside metaphor and analogy, how do you differentiate between "finite" and "infinite" offenses in the eternal sense? By your reasoning, every transgression is a blink-of-an-eye kind of thing in the eternal scheme. So a person who has committed a series of violent assaults against another person and refused to repent could argue at The Great Bar, as you have here, that his assaults were - in the eternal sense - extraordinarily brief, such that "it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown {him} forever and cut off all contact." A rapist could make the same argument. A murderer could make the same argument. The most horrible and evil people in the world could argue that their unrepented-of sins were all blink-of-an-eye transitory, and therefore "it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown them forever and cut off all contact." We are told in scripture that "the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (D&C 1:31, Alma 45:16). We are commanded to repent of every sin: "Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit." In fact, repentance is one of the most powerful themes in the scriptures. It is a beautiful concept, and one that - if accepted - utterly demolishes your complaint about disproportionality. Thanks, -Smac None of us is capable of committing an infinite crime. All crimes and sins, no matter how heinous, are finite in scope. And yet the punishment for them is infinite. That's disproportionate. Even the refusal to repent over an entire lifetime is a sin that is finite in scope. The problem is much worse in traditional Christianity, where a finite sin results in an eternity of exquisite torture. If the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, then we're already talking about a relationship that is quite different from the nature of family as we know it. Edited June 8, 2016 by Gray 1
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: None of us is capable of committing an infinite crime. All crimes and sins, no matter how heinous, are finite in scope. And yet the punishment for them is infinite. That's disproportionate. Even the refusal to repent over an entire lifetime is a sin that is finite in scope. The problem is much worse in traditional Christianity, where a finite sin results in an eternity of exquisite torture. If the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, then we're already talking about a relationship that is quite different from the nature of family as we know it. I think you're largely right. but then there's beauty in LDS belief to some extent because everyone get's eternally rewarded. The Telestial rewards are supposed to be great from our meager perspectives. The actual casting out seems to be reserved for those who supposedly would want to be cast out which we assume pertains to a very few. Will he who is sent eternally to Telestial sin ever again? I don't know. Will he consider himself punished? I don't know.
longview Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: None of us is capable of committing an infinite crime. All crimes and sins, no matter how heinous, are finite in scope. And yet the punishment for them is infinite. That's disproportionate. Even the refusal to repent over an entire lifetime is a sin that is finite in scope. So in the next life, your refusal to repent can ALSO be finite in scope. Thus delaying your reunion with God. For He cannot allow sin (in the least) to be in His Presence. But what if you REFUSE to repent? Won't that cause your "non-repentance" to become "infinite" in scope? God loves you and wants you to come back. BUT it is YOUR choice to hang on to your "sin". God will NOT take away your free agency. 2
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, Gray said: None of us is capable of committing an infinite crime. All crimes and sins, no matter how heinous, are finite in scope. And yet the punishment for them is infinite. That's disproportionate. Even the refusal to repent over an entire lifetime is a sin that is finite in scope. The problem is much worse in traditional Christianity, where a finite sin results in an eternity of exquisite torture. If the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, then we're already talking about a relationship that is quite different from the nature of family as we know it. Any sin where the price cannot be fully paid prior to the final judgment becomes infinite in scope.
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Any sin where the price cannot be fully paid prior to the final judgment becomes infinite in scope. But the price is fully paid via atonement, no? So, that's why salvation comes to all. Even the Telestial are saved.
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: But the price is fully paid via atonement, no? So, that's why salvation comes to all. Even the Telestial are saved. But perdition are not saved - they reject the atonement and so hold on to their grave sins. Additionally, scripture names some sins as unforgivable. Any sin where the price is not paid is infinite, and the wages of sin are death (aka, no salvation).
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: But perdition are not saved - they reject the atonement and so hold on to their grave sins. Additionally, scripture names some sins as unforgivable. Any sin where the price is not paid is infinite, and the wages of sin are death (aka, no salvation). Those that it would be better for them not have lived, type of stuff? I guess. Not sure I get who that really applies to, but that's ok. I have a broken heart over many people though. I used to feel strongly that Jesus' words in not offending the little ones applied to child molesters. I guess so. But they can be a pretty pitiable sort. It's disgusting stuff but even they carry with them some amount of humanity, particularly the remorseful. Then I think again of their victims and I get all pissed at them again.
Eek! Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: Well, as a parent, when I punish my child, I try to make the punishment fit the crime. If my child was rude to me, it would be a completely disproportionate punishment to disown them forever and cut off all contact. But that's what seems to be going on with the plan of salvation. A finite offense is met with the infinite punishment of losing all contact forever with Heavenly Father. That doesn't sound like a father/child relationship that I would recognize. The plan of salvation seems more along the lines of natural selection than a recognizable family relationship. I totally get where you're coming from. In my opinion the "plan of salvation" as found in the lesson manuals could not possibly be the real plan IF God is good, fair, loving, and no respecter of persons. But it is still WAY BETTER than what the other Christian churches teach. I do agree with the concept Jesus was teaching when he said, "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am". So eternal progression makes great demands of us, but serving out eternal sentences in payment for misdeeds does not make sense in this context. Edited June 8, 2016 by Eek! 1
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Those that it would be better for them not have lived, type of stuff? I guess. Not sure I get who that really applies to, but that's ok. I have a broken heart over many people though. I used to feel strongly that Jesus' words in not offending the little ones applied to child molesters. I guess so. But they can be a pretty pitiable sort. It's disgusting stuff but even they carry with them some amount of humanity, particularly the remorseful. Then I think again of their victims and I get all pissed at them again. D&C 121:16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. 17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death— 19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house. 20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them. 21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation. 22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea. 23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell. Not sure this applies only to child molesting, but the result of the actions seems clear. 1
smac97 Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Gray said: None of us is capable of committing an infinite crime. All crimes and sins, no matter how heinous, are finite in scope. And yet the punishment for them is infinite. That's disproportionate. I don't think so. The LDS paradigm posits that God is perfect and perfectly just. You are positing that God is not just (that His judgment/punishment is "disproportionate"). You are asserting this from a position of limited light and knowledge, of flawed and incomplete knowledge, of ignorance. As between the teachings found in the scriptures and from modern prophets and apostles that God is perfect and just, and your personal opinion that He is not, I will go with the former. I respect you and your opinion. I just don't agree. Quote Even the refusal to repent over an entire lifetime is a sin that is finite in scope. The problem is much worse in traditional Christianity, where a finite sin results in an eternity of exquisite torture. If the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, then we're already talking about a relationship that is quite different from the nature of family as we know it. The key words here being "as we know it." Our perspective on eternal concepts is necessarily limited and incomplete and flawed. "For now we see through a glass, darkly" and all that. It seems your argument has more to do with that limited perspective, and on the limited utility of analogies (which, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things), than with the actual doctrines/teachings of the Church. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 8, 2016 by smac97 1
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 57 minutes ago, longview said: So in the next life, your refusal to repent can ALSO be finite in scope. Thus delaying your reunion with God. For He cannot allow sin (in the least) to be in His Presence. But what if you REFUSE to repent? Won't that cause your "non-repentance" to become "infinite" in scope? God loves you and wants you to come back. BUT it is YOUR choice to hang on to your "sin". God will NOT take away your free agency. Well, if the opportunities to repent didn't have a cutoff date, then the punishment might match. You could refuse to repent for a million years. For that million years, the consequences would follow. But can people in the Telestial Kingdom repent and eventually move upwards? Some believe they can, but that's not the "official" teaching. 1
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Any sin where the price cannot be fully paid prior to the final judgment becomes infinite in scope. How do you figure?
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 37 minutes ago, Eek! said: I totally get where you're coming from. In my opinion the "plan of salvation" as found in the lesson manuals could not possibly be the real plan IF God is good, fair, loving, and no respecter of persons. But it is still WAY BETTER than what the other Christian churches teach. I do agree with the concept Jesus was teaching when he said, "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am". So eternal progression makes great demands of us, but serving out eternal sentences in payment for misdeeds does not make sense in this context. Thanks I'm on the same page with everything you just said. 1
smac97 Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: But the price is fully paid via atonement, no? So, that's why salvation comes to all. Even the Telestial are saved. I think your understanding of the Atonement is not fully correct as it pertains to those who will be sent to the Telestial Kingdom. See here (emphasis added): Quote Telestial These people did not receive the gospel or the testimony of Jesus either on earth or in the spirit world. They will suffer for their own sins in hell until after the Millennium, when they will be resurrected. “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.” These people are as numerous as the stars in heaven and the sand on the seashore. They will be visited by the Holy Ghost but not by the Father or the Son. (SeeD&C 76:81–88, 103–6, 109.) The Atonement still works for them to some extent, I think. They will, after all, be resurrected and receive a kingdom of glory. But the redemption price required to overcome the consequences of their own sins will - either totally or partially - be paid for by their own suffering. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 8, 2016 by smac97 1
stemelbow Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think your understanding of the Atonement is not fully correct as it pertains to those who will be sent to the Telestial Kingdom. See here: The Atonement still works for them to some extent, I think. They will, after all, be resurrected and receive a kingdom of glory. But the redemption price required to overcome the consequences of their own sins will - either totally or partially - be paid for by their own suffering. Thanks, -Smac thanks. I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with the above. If they suffer for the sins I'm not sure it amounts to clearing them of their sins, as that seems to take atonement to accomplish. Ultimately they are saved from the effects of sin and are granted an eternal kingdom of glory. If I sin today I have to suffer to some extent for my sin...my suffering doesn't pay for the sin, though.
Calm Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Even the refusal to repent over an entire lifetime is a sin that is finite in scope. What about a refusal to repent over an eternity? (never mind, I see someone else brought this up) Edited June 8, 2016 by Calm
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I don't think so. The LDS paradigm posits that God is perfect and perfectly just. You are positing that God is not just (that His judgment/punishment is "disproportionate"). You are asserting this from a position of limited light and knowledge, of flawed and incomplete knowledge, of ignorance. As between the teachings found in the scriptures and from modern prophets and apostles that God is perfect and just, and your personal opinion that He is not, I will go with the former. I respect you and your opinion. I just don't agree. The key words here being "as we know it." Our perspective on eternal concepts is necessarily limited and incomplete and flawed. "For now we see through a glass, darkly" and all that. It seems your argument has more to do with that limited perspective, and on the limited utility of analogies (which, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things), than with the actual doctrines/teachings of the Church. Thanks, -Smac Sure, the perspective is always limited. All of this is highly theoretical stuff. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, Smac. Thank you Edited June 8, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, Calm said: What about a refusal to repent over an eternity? (never mind, I see someone else brought this up) That would be infinite, yes. But the current model says there is no more opportunity to repent after a certain point in time.
Calm Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 By the time final judgment rolls around, we will be fully reintegrated with our eternal selves. A mortal sin/behaviour may be finite but our actions come from who we are and therefore may be a result of our eternal natures. The Atonement allows us access to a process that can change that part of our eternal natures we wish to change, but that part which we treasure and have no desire as eternal beings to change may indeed limit our progression eternally. It may appear unjust to us who are mortal and thus appearing to be very changeable in many ways over a very short period of time and thus unable to fully comprehend not only God and his choices, but our own eternal natures. But that limitation will be lifted before judgment, before we are given the opportunity of eternal choice at judgment. Thus though we can't currently fully understand the implications, God's (and our own) judgment/answers to our questions about our place in all of this will be both merciful (because he has given us through our mortal experience and spiritual post life the opportunities to explore who we are and what we can be and anything else we need to choose whatever type of person we eternally desire to become) and just (because we will measure ourselves and be measured by him for that choice and placed in the proper environment we can fully express our eternal natures in the best way possible). If we choose in that eternal moment (whatever that means) with our eternal natures (whatever those are) to eternally limit our engagement with God to certain levels, I don't see that as punishment at all, but rather God being willing to accept us for who we are on our own terms. Which is what a good parent does, right? 1
Ahab Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 10:30 AM, Gray said: Well, the currently favored idea about the afterlife is there is no progression between kingdoms. However if it turned out there were progression between kingdoms, then eternal condemnation would not exist for most people. Very few people actually favor that idea, the one you call the currently favored idea. The kingdoms are all subdivisions of Heaven and the predominant factor in determining which subdivision of Heaven people get to enjoy is whichever level of glory/intelligence they have chosen to accept. So as long as people are capable of becoming more intelligent/glorious than they are at any given point, then the more they will fit in with and be qualified to live with people of greater intelligence/glory who live predominantly in the higher/greater subdivisions of Heaven. Just basic common sense that most people accept when they have enough intelligence to see what is involved and why it works out that way. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Quote On 6/6/2016 at 11:30 AM, Gray said: Well, the currently favored idea about the afterlife is there is no progression between kingdoms. However if it turned out there were progression between kingdoms, then eternal condemnation would not exist for most people. Very few people actually favor that idea, the one you call the currently favored idea. The kingdoms are all subdivisions of Heaven and the predominant factor in determining which subdivision of Heaven people get to enjoy is whichever level of glory/intelligence they have chosen to accept. I certainly don't favor it. (Sorry Elder McConkie). I am certain that there is either A: Progression between Kingdoms or B: Kingdoms continue to progress. There is no standing still. 1
Calm Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Or another shorter way of saying the above, judgment will not be based on what we did, but who we are...not the how or what of our chosen behaviours, but the why. If one does not believe there is any nature that wouldn't change in a human given enough time, it may be hard to see a "final judgment" as just or merciful, but it seems to me even in our limited mortal perspective we grasp that part of us is fundamental to our being...though we probably too often attributed that quality to aspects that could be changed if we allowed ourselves to be open to the idea (especially since the Atonement is available to us) to make excuses for our current behaviour.
smac97 Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I am certain that there is either A: Progression between Kingdoms or B: Kingdoms continue to progress. There is no standing still. I am open to the possibility of inter-kingdom progression. I suppose it could it could even be said that I am favorably disposed toward it. But we lack light and knowledge about it, so I have it on a shelf in my brain. I peruse it occasionally, but that's about as far as I am willing to go. Thanks, -Smac 3
Gray Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: Very few people actually favor that idea, the one you call the currently favored idea. The kingdoms are all subdivisions of Heaven and the predominant factor in determining which subdivision of Heaven people get to enjoy is whichever level of glory/intelligence they have chosen to accept. So as long as people are capable of becoming more intelligent/glorious than they are at any given point, then the more they will fit in with and be qualified to live with people of greater intelligence/glory who live predominantly in the higher/greater subdivisions of Heaven. Just basic common sense that most people accept when they have enough intelligence to see what is involved and why it works out that way. It is apparently not so set in stone as I had supposed. I read Mormon Doctrine as a youth, perhaps that's where I got the impression that it was settled doctrine: http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Three_degrees_of_glory/Progression_between_kingdoms A literal reading of certain passages of scripture seems to suggest no progression. But then again, a literal reading of other passages suggests that people who don't embrace Mormonism can never go to the Celestial Kingdom, even if they embrace it after death. So who knows?
JLHPROF Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: It is apparently not so set in stone as I had supposed. I read Mormon Doctrine as a youth, perhaps that's where I got the impression that it was settled doctrine: http://en.fairmormon.org/Plan_of_salvation/Three_degrees_of_glory/Progression_between_kingdoms A literal reading of certain passages of scripture seems to suggest no progression. But then again, a literal reading of other passages suggests that people who don't embrace Mormonism can never go to the Celestial Kingdom, even if they embrace it after death. So who knows? Interesting link. All the quotes AGAINST progression between/of kingdoms. Then the statement that there is no official Church position. Why not include the statements FOR progression too? Come on Fairmormon. Play fair.
Recommended Posts