Baptism and the Atonement

[jkwilliams]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly- timing is irrelevant when we have eternities to get it right.  That is exactly what "eternal progression" is!

That's interesting. Maybe that means kids have 10 years to show remission of sins. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems we agree on Gift of the Holy Ghost. If a person does not have the gift of the Holy Ghost they are missing out on one of God's gifts. Whether it is temporary or permanent, missing out on the gift of the Holy Ghost is significant. Others on this thread claim differently.

RE: Remission of sins and forgiveness- I understand they appear differently in the scriptures, but what really is the difference. Can you define Remission of sins and Forgiveness. How are those definitions different?

I've asked the question a few times now but no one has answered. What good is forgiveness if it doesn't cleanse someone like a remission of sins does? So even if God forgives people who have never been baptized (which I believe he does, BTW), what is the effect? JLHPROF thinks it makes the resurrection possible, but I don't buy that. What good is forgiveness without a remission of sins (If they are truly different things)?

With regards to “missing out,” in relation to Acts 17:26-27, God has designed things so that ultimately no one misses out. In relation to 2 Nephi 28:29, Matthew 25:29, D&C 88:32 and the like, the determining factor is our own will and choice.

While they are often used synonymously, I think forgiveness is what God does (and what we are asked to do) toward others: “to pardon or excuse someone from blame for an offense or misdeed.” https://www.lds.org/topics/forgiveness?lang=eng We love them rather than blame or accuse them. They are free of any debt or penalty, but they retain the negative effects of breaking eternal law upon their person, their character and in their loss of agency.

For example, in John 8:11, Jesus only says that He does not condemn the woman. Condemnation would be held off until Judgement Day (verses 21, 24), but hopefully she would repent, and this is the intent of His reprieve, to invite and encourage her to succeed in her mortal probation. He did not actually forgive her (yet, anyway), but gave her a reprieve for punishment, which we all enjoy (Alma 34:33). He instructed her to “sin no more” (and hopefully repent and continue in the faith unto baptism). In the same manner, the people He healed, raised and exorcised were only given a reprieve from sickness, death and possession, a “fullness” to occur in the resurrection and judgement, after they continued in the faith, ordinances and covenants.

Now did she feel or presume she was forgiven by interpreting “not condemn” to mean or equal “forgive”? She may have, with limited light, and that may have served the Lord’s purposes (and hers) for the time being, which is the important thing, but she probably changed her perspective after she was baptized and received the Holy Ghost. Then she felt what she would consider a remission of sin, discerning the differences between feeling a reprieve, forgiveness and remission.

Because of the way "remission" appears and is used in scripture -- always connected with the word "baptism" or the baptized state, while "forgiveness" is not -- remission seems to be of a higher order with attendant covenant responsibilities. I think remittance is what happens when in addition to the external penalty to be paid (which both God and man can extend within their spheres of power), the personal effects of the offense upon the persona’s spirit are lifted and he becomes like Christ and expands his agency (which only God can do).

Another way of explaining this is that forgiveness might be the temporal form (since we can practice it as imperfect beings, and Jesus displayed it in His healing of temporal ailments and on the cross unto the thief’s relief in paradise but not exaltation), and remission might be the eternal form of the same thing. I see it as the difference between a judge acquitting someone of a crime and having actual mercy on him*. A subtle difference but very distinguishable if you’re on the receiving end!

Forgiveness is a strong motivator for improvement, a step above simply not condemning someone (which may provide some motivation also). And more than improvement, it is meant to direct someone into the covenants that bring remission. That is why we are told to forgive, it brings people to Christ. Remission is the cleaning that come only from God (while we can forgive in our limited way, we cannot remit sins to any degree at all).

* a careful analysis of the different synonyms for each word shows where they overlap and don't; acquittal vs. mercy is an example of where their synonyms differ.

Edited August 15, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Exactly- timing is irrelevant when we have eternities to get it right.  That is exactly what "eternal progression" is!

Careful.  You'll make Elder McConkie spin in his grave teaching heresies like that.

Don't you know once Terrestrial always Terrestrial....(NOT!)

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Careful.  You'll make Elder McConkie spin in his grave teaching heresies like that.

Don't you know once Terrestrial always Terrestrial....(NOT!)

Just curious how you reconcile the idea that if we are resurrected with a Telestial body (take your pick) we can progress to another level?

Quote

35But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36[Thou] fool, that whichthou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, butbare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: 38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. 40[There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the gloryof the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another. 41[There is] one glory of the sun, and another gloryof the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

1 Cor 15

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just curious how you reconcile the idea that if we are resurrected with a Telestial body (take your pick) we can progress to another level?

That depends on how you define a "terrestrial body" and a "telestial body" and a "celestial body".
If it is a matter of light then more light can be gained or lost.
If it is a matter of law then new laws can be obeyed.

From translated beings to pre-mortal Adam and Eve to transfigured beings to the idea that the Telestial Kingdom contains an innumerable variety of kingdoms (and therefore glories) - it's clear there are many, many types of bodies in all spheres of progression.
I see little evidence that we lose our ability to progress after the resurrection.

Edited August 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Strangely, D&C 20:37 says a person has to have their sins forgiven BEFORE they are baptized.
 

So apparently one CAN receive forgiveness of sins WITHOUT baptism.

And in fact, this scripture says a person MUST receive forgiveness of their sins BEFORE being baptized.

Curioser and curioser.

I think the easiest way to conceptualize the difference between forgiveness and remission is to consider that you can forgive, but you cannot forgive sins. God can both forgive and forgive sins, the latter constituting a remission.

So, the "unto" in the “unto [preposition; to, until] the remission of their sins” means the remission is yet coming, and contingent upon baptism.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the easiest way to conceptualize the difference between forgiveness and remission is to consider that you can forgive, but you cannot forgive sins. God can both forgive and forgive sins, the latter constituting a remission.

So, the "unto" in the “unto [preposition; to, until] the remission of their sins” means the remission is yet coming, and contingent upon baptism.

"Remission" literally means the cancellation of a debt or an obligation, so remission is more the removal of the consequence of sin. In a secular example, when my brothers were killed, our family forgave the man whose carelessness (exacerbated by drug use) caused their deaths, but we had no power to "remit" or satisfy the legal consequences of his actions, which resulted in a criminal trial. 

[Analytics]

On 8/11/2016 at 2:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

I would have said that Mormons believe that through the atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

In this context, being "saved" means being saved from sin (spiritual death) and the grave (physical death).  And, of course, the first two ordinances of the gospel are baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Going back to the original question, is being forgiven the same thing as being saved?  Perhaps Mormons believe that God isn't one to hold a grudge against His non-Mormon children, and in that sense He is willing to forgive non-Mormons, but it seems that being 100% forgiven by God means that the effects of spiritual death have been removed, i.e. you are saved from spiritual death.  The Articles of Faith imply that you can't be completely forgiven, i.e. saved, without being baptized.

On the other hand, the Lord also told Joseph Smith, "he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more." (D&C 58:42).  So to the extent that non-Mormons can obey the first two principles of the gospel (Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Repentance), perhaps that is all that is required to be forgiven, but still isn't sufficient to be saved.

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I would have said that Mormons believe that through the atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

In this context, being "saved" means being saved from sin (spiritual death) and the grave (physical death).  And, of course, the first two ordinances of the gospel are baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Going back to the original question, is being forgiven the same thing as being saved?  Perhaps Mormons believe that God isn't one to hold a grudge against His non-Mormon children, and in that sense He is willing to forgive non-Mormons, but it seems that being 100% forgiven by God means that the effects of spiritual death have been removed, i.e. you are saved from spiritual death.  The Articles of Faith imply that you can't be completely forgiven, i.e. saved, without being baptized.

On the other hand, the Lord also told Joseph Smith, "he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more." (D&C 58:42).  So to the extent that non-Mormons can obey the first two principles of the gospel (Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and Repentance), perhaps that is all that is required to be forgiven, but still isn't sufficient to be saved.

The issue for me was whether there are any immediate blessings to baptism and confirmation that someone who isn't baptized will miss out on if they have to wait 10 years. I was always taught that there are great blessings that would help young people as they grew up. I guess that's the minority view these days.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

"Remission" literally means the cancellation of a debt or an obligation, so remission is more the removal of the consequence of sin. In a secular example, when my brothers were killed, our family forgave the man whose carelessness (exacerbated by drug use) caused their deaths, but we had no power to "remit" or satisfy the legal consequences of his actions, which resulted in a criminal trial. 

But if we're talking about God, why would he forgive but not remit? What good is the forgiveness if the debt/obligation/consequence persists?

CV75 mentioned that maybe forgiveness is temporal (temporary) where as remittance fulfills the requirements of justice and law. I guess I don't see the value of God forgiving someone temporally while still requiring the debt to be paid. It sounds more like a band aid than a cure. For humans, forgiveness is all we can offer and that is positive. It just seems like forgiveness without remission of sins from God is a half measure at best.

 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The issue for me was whether there are any immediate blessings to baptism and confirmation that someone who isn't baptized will miss out on if they have to wait 10 years. I was always taught that there are great blessings that would help young people as they grew up. I guess that's the minority view these days.

Sure.  I think to most Church members though, God creates exceptions.  Meaning if there happens to be kids who live with their gay parents, having this rule then apply, who want to be baptized, God makes exceptions and blesses them and works with them individually.  I think that's largely an LDS type thought on it.  But I will add, then.  It does make the actual ordinance and when it happen not be all that meaningful.  Maybe God knows who eventually accepts and who does not and directs their lives accordingly.  Then again, everyone bows the knee and confess at the end of it all.  So you got me on that part of it. 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Strangely, D&C 20:37 says a person has to have their sins forgiven BEFORE they are baptized.
 

So apparently one CAN receive forgiveness of sins WITHOUT baptism.

And in fact, this scripture says a person MUST receive forgiveness of their sins BEFORE being baptized.

Curioser and curioser.

Very curious. Thanks for providing a good reference for explanation. If we take D&C 20:37 at face value, we must define "forgiveness" and "remission of sins" differently. CV75 made a good attempt at that, but I still don't see the value of forgiveness coming from God that is not also a remission of sins. A temporal forgiveness seems like little more than a pat on the back.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The issue for me was whether there are any immediate blessings to baptism and confirmation that someone who isn't baptized will miss out on if they have to wait 10 years. I was always taught that there are great blessings that would help young people as they grew up. I guess that's the minority view these days.

I'm totally surprised by this conversation. Here's what Preach My Gospel has to say about the importance of baptism.

Quote

Baptizing and confirming the people you teach is central to your purpose. Baptism is for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost brings a host of blessings to those who live worthy of it. Through these ordinances people enter the gate and continue on the path to eternal life. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: “We do not preach and teach in order to ‘bring people into the Church’ or to increase the membership of the Church. We do not preach and teach just to persuade people to live better lives. … We invite all to come unto Christ by repentance and baptism and confirmation in order to open the doors of the celestial kingdom to the sons and daughters of God. No one else can do this”

"All" should read "almost all".

I'm confused by what appears to be a belief of some that 10 years makes no difference. Whether they are baptized at 8 or 18, it really doesn't matter. I understand in the sense that once baptism occurs, all the same blessings are realized, but what doesn't make sense is the lack of recognition of the lost opportunities in those 10 years. During those formative years the church is denying a kid/youth the opportunity to receive and exercise priesthood, attend the temple and do sacred ordinances as a service, serve in youth leadership positions, have the gift of the holy ghost to presumably learn to recognize and act on impressions from the spirit, etc. etc.

In business we sometimes refer to an Opportunity Wedge which represents life as a wedge, characterized by closing horizons and opportunities based on immediate decisions. This would manifest in the church and with spiritual opportunities as well. Decisions I make now impact the opportunities I have in the future. So for a child missing out on 10 years of church membership, participation, holy ghost etc, the wedge of opportunity shifts. The child will then have greater obstacles to overcome if they hope to reclaim those opportunities that were previously denied.

These kids don't live in a time vacuum that will pick up for them at 18 as if they were still 8 year olds. Life moves on and they make choices based on the opportunities afforded them and based on opportunities denied them. Refusing them entry to the gate that leads to salvation is very significant and hurtful.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm totally surprised by this conversation. Here's what Preach My Gospel has to say about the importance of baptism.

"All" should read "almost all".

I'm confused by what appears to be a belief of some that 10 years makes no difference. Whether they are baptized at 8 or 18, it really doesn't matter. I understand in the sense that once baptism occurs, all the same blessings are realized, but what doesn't make sense is the lack of recognition of the lost opportunities in those 10 years. During those formative years the church is denying a kid/youth the opportunity to receive and exercise priesthood, attend the temple and do sacred ordinances as a service, serve in youth leadership positions, have the gift of the holy ghost to presumably learn to recognize and act on impressions from the spirit, etc. etc.

The smallest number of kids have any of that.  If there have been 100 billion people who have lived on this planet, as some estimates put it, then we'd be saying that God shows some people favor over others, by virtue of when and where they are born.  That's too simplistic. 

God works with the individual, whether Church member or not, whether ordinances were accomplished in the past or not.  It does not matter to Him whether someone is a member of the Church or not.  To Him it has to be we're all in this together.  it has to be. 

That's my take.  We need to stop pretending that baptism at 8 brings us any more favor with God. 
Our missionary program and temple work keeps us lively.  But its not spreading the gospel, at least not anymore, really.  As of this past year growth rate in the Church was slower than the world's growth rate, meaning we essentially didn't grow.  yet, as it is God still has a plan for the billions of people who have nothing to do with Mormonism at all. 

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In business we sometimes refer to an Opportunity Wedge which represents life as a wedge, characterized by closing horizons and opportunities based on immediate decisions. This would manifest in the church and with spiritual opportunities as well. Decisions I make now impact the opportunities I have in the future. So for a child missing out on 10 years of church membership, participation, holy ghost etc, the wedge of opportunity shifts. The child will then have greater obstacles to overcome if they hope to reclaim those opportunities that were previously denied.

But everyone will receive the ordinances anyway.  With eternity as the back drop it doesn't matter when they are performed.  If not so God would be a big old jerk. 

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

These kids don't live in a time vacuum that will pick up for them at 18 as if they were still 8 year olds. Life moves on and they make choices based on the opportunities afforded them and based on opportunities denied them. Refusing them entry to the gate that leads to salvation is very significant and hurtful.

Sadly the number of kids that this policy effects  it near zero anyway.  this policy did nothing more than slap gay people and their supporters, particularly us supporters in the Church, in the face, gave us a stiff punch in the gut.  it hurts the Church in the long run because the Church just sinks deeper into an exclusive and insular hole.  Which is stupid.  But God won't penalize kids. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

1- The smallest number of kids have any of that.  If there have been 100 billion people who have lived on this planet, as some estimates put it, then we'd be saying that God shows some people favor over others, by virtue of when and where they are born.  That's too simplistic. 

God works with the individual, whether Church member or not, whether ordinances were accomplished in the past or not.  It does not matter to Him whether someone is a member of the Church or not.  To Him it has to be we're all in this together.  it has to be. 

2- That's my take.  We need to stop pretending that baptism at 8 brings us any more favor with God. 
3- Our missionary program and temple work keeps us lively.  But its not spreading the gospel, at least not anymore, really.  As of this past year growth rate in the Church was slower than the world's growth rate, meaning we essentially didn't grow.  yet, as it is God still has a plan for the billions of people who have nothing to do with Mormonism at all. 

4- But everyone will receive the ordinances anyway.  With eternity as the back drop it doesn't matter when they are performed.  If not so God would be a big old jerk. 

5-Sadly the number of kids that this policy effects  it near zero anyway.  this policy did nothing more than slap gay people and their supporters, particularly us supporters in the Church, in the face, gave us a stiff punch in the gut.  it hurts the Church in the long run because the Church just sinks deeper into an exclusive and insular hole.  Which is stupid. 

6-But God won't penalize kids. 

1- I agree but I don't think that's what the church teaches. Aren't we often told that we are blessed to live in this time and place and where much is given, much is required. My Patriarchal blessing specifically states that I was blessed to choose when and where I would be born. I even got to choose my righteous family. The whole concept of preordination shows that some are a step ahead of others even before they're born.

2- I agree, but that's not what the church teaches. Else why have children baptized at 8? Why make a big production of these kids making this monumental decision to follow and covenant with Christ? To the church it's usually a huge deal, just not with children of gays. That's the disparity.

3- Agree, though the church would claim differently

4- Yet this life is a probationary state in which we are to prepare to meet God. This is the 2nd estate. This life and the decisions we make here and now are supposed to matter. I'm not sure that temple work is supposed to be considered a safety net for those who choose not to accept and participate during this life.

5- I agree, but the policy weakens the church position on many levels. It calls into question long held doctrines by creating unnecessary inconsistencies.

6- I agree. The church may penalize kids, but God won't. As more and more people come to that realization the church will have a harder time holding onto them, no matter how they try to spin the policy as being in the child's best interest.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if we're talking about God, why would he forgive but not remit? What good is the forgiveness if the debt/obligation/consequence persists?

CV75 mentioned that maybe forgiveness is temporal (temporary) where as remittance fulfills the requirements of justice and law. I guess I don't see the value of God forgiving someone temporally while still requiring the debt to be paid. It sounds more like a band aid than a cure. For humans, forgiveness is all we can offer and that is positive. It just seems like forgiveness without remission of sins from God is a half measure at best.

 

It has something to do with the idea that both mercy and justice must be satisfied. Forgiveness satisfies mercy, but justice demands punishment, and the Atonement is Christ taking the punishment for us. It's never seemed particularly "just" to me, but that's how it's always been explained to me. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

"Remission" literally means the cancellation of a debt or an obligation, so remission is more the removal of the consequence of sin. In a secular example, when my brothers were killed, our family forgave the man whose carelessness (exacerbated by drug use) caused their deaths, but we had no power to "remit" or satisfy the legal consequences of his actions, which resulted in a criminal trial. 

Yes, I've heard it explained that way too, and as the removal of the effects of sin.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if we're talking about God, why would he forgive but not remit? What good is the forgiveness if the debt/obligation/consequence persists?

CV75 mentioned that maybe forgiveness is temporal (temporary) where as remittance fulfills the requirements of justice and law. I guess I don't see the value of God forgiving someone temporally while still requiring the debt to be paid. It sounds more like a band aid than a cure. For humans, forgiveness is all we can offer and that is positive. It just seems like forgiveness without remission of sins from God is a half measure at best.

 

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Very curious. Thanks for providing a good reference for explanation. If we take D&C 20:37 at face value, we must define "forgiveness" and "remission of sins" differently. CV75 made a good attempt at that, but I still don't see the value of forgiveness coming from God that is not also a remission of sins. A temporal forgiveness seems like little more than a pat on the back.

I think God uses forgiveness as a band-aid, half-measure and pat on the back to coax us along to do what we need to do to receive the covenants and the full remission of sins. Also,God may forgive us but we retain many of the effects of sin, and it is a temporal or conditional forgiveness in that these forgiven sins (and the corresponding effects of these sins) can return (D&C 82:7). A broken heart and contrite spirit (which are neither penalties nor effects of sin) are only the beginning of the process of getting past the forgiveness of our sins and into in their remission in connection with baptism and other covenants. The actual, full remission still may not occur until much later, or in the resurrection.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Very curious. Thanks for providing a good reference for explanation. If we take D&C 20:37 at face value, we must define "forgiveness" and "remission of sins" differently. CV75 made a good attempt at that, but I still don't see the value of forgiveness coming from God that is not also a remission of sins. A temporal forgiveness seems like little more than a pat on the back.

More like a C + on a pop quiz instead of the usual D minus, with hope for a B on the next one. 

Enough improvement and time, and maybe one could even ace the final.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It has something to do with the idea that both mercy and justice must be satisfied. Forgiveness satisfies mercy, but justice demands punishment, and the Atonement is Christ taking the punishment for us. It's never seemed particularly "just" to me, but that's how it's always been explained to me. 

The traditional teachings on the atonement, most of which the LDS church has inherited from protestant churches, are increasingly not fitting with how I view the atonement and forgiveness.

Take your statement above, "justice demands punishment."  Who is this justice that is demanding punishment?  Is it a thing?  A person?  Why would this justice be demanding punishment anyway?  If God is this justice, or the embodiment of justice, why is he demanding punishment when he is, at the same time, dispensing mercy?

That part of traditional christian thinking just doesn't seem to work for me.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It has something to do with the idea that both mercy and justice must be satisfied. Forgiveness satisfies mercy, but justice demands punishment, and the Atonement is Christ taking the punishment for us. It's never seemed particularly "just" to me, but that's how it's always been explained to me. 

Ok- but I don't know how forgiveness shows mercy if it doesn't satisfy justice. Again, just a pat on the back and friendly tousle of the hair.

Quote

I think God uses forgiveness as a band-aid, half-measure and pat on the back to coax us along to do what we need to do to receive the covenants and the full remission of sins. Also,God may forgive us but we retain many of the effects of sin, and it is a temporal or conditional forgiveness in that these forgiven sins (and the corresponding effects of these sins) can return (D&C 82:7).

I appreciate the effort to answer my questions. I'll stop beating the dead horse. But in my mind if God forgives a sin there should be no remaining effects of that sin in eternity that then requires a remission. The band aid isn't very comforting.

Thank you all for the discussion. I've never thought these issues through in quite this way before so I appreciate it.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The traditional teachings on the atonement, most of which the LDS church has inherited from protestant churches, are increasingly not fitting with how I view the atonement and forgiveness.

Take your statement above, "justice demands punishment."  Who is this justice that is demanding punishment?  Is it a thing?  A person?  Why would this justice be demanding punishment anyway?  If God is this justice, or the embodiment of justice, why is he demanding punishment when he is, at the same time, dispensing mercy?

That part of traditional christian thinking just doesn't seem to work for me.

It's not just a traditional Christian way of thinking. It has its place in LDS doctrine: “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 42:22.)

Perhaps the best explication of these concepts that I can think of is this from then-Elder Packer:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/the-mediator?lang=eng&_r=1

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ok- but I don't know how forgiveness shows mercy if it doesn't satisfy justice. Again, just a pat on the back and friendly tousle of the hair.

I don't know. Like I said, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Elder Packer treats it as if justice is an eternal law demanding punishment/consequence, and the only way around that was for Christ to take the punishment. 

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I appreciate the effort to answer my questions. I'll stop beating the dead horse. But in my mind if God forgives a sin there should be no remaining effects of that sin in eternity that then requires a remission. The band aid isn't very comforting.

Thank you all for the discussion. I've never thought these issues through in quite this way before so I appreciate it.

I think what Mark is getting at is that this life is for us to learn and progress, so forgiveness is something that gives us a new start each time we sin and need to repent, and hopefully, as we go along, we progress and do better.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not just a traditional Christian way of thinking. It has its place in LDS doctrine: “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 42:22.)

Perhaps the best explication of these concepts that I can think of is this from then-Elder Packer:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/the-mediator?lang=eng&_r=1

Yes, I'm aware of both the scripture in Alma as well as Elder Packer's beautiful general conference address.  I guess what I'm saying is that some of the language that we use when talking about justice and mercy and the atonement just doesn't work for me.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, I'm aware of both the scripture in Alma as well as Elder Packer's beautiful general conference address.  I guess what I'm saying is that some of the language that we use when talking about justice and mercy and the atonement just doesn't work for me.  

I guess you can take it up with Alma.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 

Perhaps the best explication of these concepts that I can think of is this from then-Elder Packer:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/the-mediator?lang=eng&_r=1

With the story Elder Packer relates I keep asking myself, "why doesn't the creditor just forgive the debt?"  That's what God does doesn't he?  When we sincerely repent he has promised that He will forgive our sins.