What did the LDS Jesus die for, exactly?

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Okay, no difference.  We all agree Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, that our Eternal, Unchanging God came into human history as a man (the Incarnation), and that He died in our place for our sin. 

Wait a second, did anyone notice that poll at the top...?

;0)

--Erik

PS.  I don't like to use "Mormon Jesus" as it seems condescending and that's really not my intent (this may come as surprise to some of you who don't appreciate my style or humor).  So if not "LDS Jesus" - what should I use to designate the deity Joseph Smith described--So that Jesus treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then inherits what God did before.  Serious question, what would you prefer?

The LDS do not  believe in the Non-biblical Trinity. The LDS believe in the Biblical Godhead.

I don't understand your question.

Edited February 14, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

PS.  I don't like to use "Mormon Jesus" as it seems condescending and that's really not my intent (this may come as surprise to some of you who don't appreciate my style or humor).  So if not "LDS Jesus" - what should I use to designate the deity Joseph Smith described--So that Jesus treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then inherits what God did before.  Serious question, what would you prefer?

Just call Him Jesus, Five Solas.  No need to sound terribly condescending.  We all know that we are Mormon and that you are not.  We all know that you perceive Jesus different than we do.  We all know that you disagree with our perception and that we disagree with yours...but he is the same Jesus.  

We all see through a glass darkly and fall short in our perceptions and descriptions of the Lord.  We all see Him from a different angle, but He is the same Jesus to all of us.

The Blind Men and the Elephant
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)
 
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.  

    The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"       

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"     

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!" 

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, 
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!" 

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Edited February 14, 2017 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

On 2/12/2017 at 8:55 PM, Five Solas said:

Another thread took an interesting twist on the oft-debated subject of “free agency.”  Rather than risk thread derailment, I thought the topic merited its own.  So here we go--

The quote (I’m sure Kenngo1969 won’t mind) was intended to refute the free part of free agency. He wrote: It's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it.

For it.  It being agency.  Jesus spilled his blood & died for agency, what LDS (back when I was a kid) used to call "free agency." 

I never heard this before and I admitted as much.  Another poster jumped in and provided a number of passages from Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham and Book of Moses to make the case that the LDS Jesus certainly did die for agency.  He finished his post by excoriating me for what he takes to be my willful ignorance.  Apparently every good LDS already knows this.  You can find it here.  

But is this really commonly understood by LDS - that their Jesus died for agency?  What do you think?  Did he die for something else?  Or for a bunch of things?  To tell the truth, it always seemed a little fuzzy, back when I was LDS. 

--Erik

Hello Erik,

I can understand the confusion. I offer my opinion and understanding in the hopes to clarify a few things.  

I answered the poll question that Jesus died as an atonement for our sins.  I do not agree that he died for our free agency - that is conflating a few concepts of the gospel and muddies the water a bit.  The Plan of Salvation is based on the concept that God the Father desired a process whereby all his children might return to him.  Jesus, the First born, offered to serve as the Savior, which necessarily requires that we be sent to a mortal probation with the ability to choose to follow the Savior or not.  This ability to choose, Free Agency, is required within the process, but it is not the reason Jesus died for us.  

The Church of Jesus Christ teaches that through the Atonement we are washed of all our sins - that as we worthily partake of the Sacrament each week we become as clean as we were when first baptized.  

I agree with the statement that our freedom from the grave, the forgiveness of our sins, came at the cost of the our Savior's blood and complete sacrifice.  It is only through him that we may return to our Father.

The vast majority of the comments appear more a problem with semantics than with any real problems.  Regardless, I appreciate your thoughtful, sincere questions.  

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, SamIam said:

Because the Atonement had the effect of preserving every aspect of the plan of salvation, of course it preserved agency, and it preserved faith, and it preserved the earth as the celestial kingdom, and the terrestrial and telestial as well.  It may have preserved Oreo cookies as well. Why one would see agency as a key focal point of the atonement is unclear to me. Surely agency is one of the greatest gifts given of God for his children and many scriptures attest to it's significance.  Still though the infinite reach of the atonement far surpasses the ideology that it preserved agency as the significant focal point.

Agency is what enables us to choose.  The ability to choose presupposes that not all of our choices are going to be what God would have us choose in any given situation or circumstance (i.e., that we will sin).  Thus, a Savior is necessary to atone for our sins, and, according to the scripture I quoted earlier, Christ's death, atonement, and resurrection preserve the plan in its entirety.  Without Christ's atonement, death, and resurrection, our spirits automatically would have become subject to the devil, frustrating the entire plan (and destroying agency) at the outset (true, the scripture doesn't say we'll be denied a mortal life, but what's the sense of being born into mortality if, in the end, one is simply subject to the devil anyway?).

Edited February 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Erik,

I can understand the confusion. I offer my opinion and understanding in the hopes to clarify a few things.  

I answered the poll question that Jesus died as an atonement for our sins.  I do not agree that he died for our free agency - that is conflating a few concepts of the gospel and muddies the water a bit.  ...

Hello Storm Rider:

Then how do you read the scripture from the Book of Mormon I quoted earlier in the thread?  To me, it clearly states that but for Christ's atonement, death, and resurrection, our spirits would automatically have become subject to the devil. That sure as heck sounds like a loss of agency to me. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9.7-9?lang=eng (Yes, apparently the "subjection" would come after death rather than before, but what's the sense of having a mortal probation if none of our choices will enable us to escape our ultimate subjection to the devil anyway?)  And it's certainly not, in my view, inconsistent with the idea that Christ died for our sins: there can be neither sin nor righteousness without agency; thus, although it is in no way improper to say that Christ died for our sins, neither is it improper to say that he died for our agency.

My $0.02.  Actual value an infinitesimally small $0.0000001928374655.

Sorry for muddying the waters , but hey, if I didn't do that around here, prolly wouldn't be good for anything!  

Edited February 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hello Storm Rider:

Then how do you read the scripture from the Book of Mormon I quoted earlier in the thread?  To me, it clearly states that but for Christ's atonement, death, and resurrection, our spirits would automatically have become subject to the devil. That sure as heck sounds like a loss of agency to me. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9.7-9?lang=eng (Yes, apparently the "subjection" would come after death rather than before, but what's the sense of having a mortal probation if none of our choices will enable us to escape our ultimate subjection to the devil anyway?)  And it's certainly not, in my view, inconsistent with the idea that Christ died for our sins: there can be neither sin nor righteousness without agency; thus, although it is in no way improper to say that Christ died for our sins, neither is it improper to say that he died for our agency.

My $0.02.  Actual value an infinitesimally small $0.0000001928374655.

Sorry for muddying the waters , but hey, if I didn't do that around here, prolly wouldn't be good for anything!  

Kenngo,

I still think this is an issue of semantics and conflating of concepts. Before Jesus came to earth we had our free agency. That was part of God's plan.  The verse you quoted does not conflict with that - had we not had God's plan we would remain completely subject to Satan.  Jesus' entrance into the world was contingent upon us already having free agency.  He did not die so that we could have it - it is as if you are going from A to Z and missing the important steps in between - which is conflating different concepts and then saying they are the same.  

His birth did not enhance our free agency - right?  His birth, death, and resurrection gave us the opportunity to become sons and daughters of God the Father - to live with him - Jesus' perfection becomes our perfection.  

I think to use a statement like - Jesus' death gave us free agency is confusing.  Free agency is a requisite of the Plan, but Jesus' actual death/sacrifice gave us so much more.  It is like looking at the statue of the Christus and focusing a talk on the wonder of the statue's right foot's little toe.  Do you see what I am trying to say however poorly?  The Christus does have a little toe, but it is just the improper focus when describing the wonder of the statue.  Make sense?

[dberrie2000]

Hi everyone:

I'm not sure what the extent of the Atonement is, as it is complex enough to warrant questions as long as a grocery store counter--and some we can't even think of, possibly.

There are two things the Atonement did do, unconditionally-- according to the Biblical text:

1) It absolved mankind from the automatic condemnation which befell all men due to the Fall.

Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)

¹⁸ Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Which allows all to be judged according to our own choices(according to our ability)--and not Adam's transgression.

But even that--as powerful as it is--still could not bring eternal life to us, in and by itself.

And the reason being--when the condemnation of all men from the Fall was absolved--it still left us with one insurmountable problem--personal sin.

That's where the second stage kicked in--

2) Christ became the Redeemer of all men-- in reality, through a Blood Atonement of the sins of the world--and, as Redeemer of mankind(saved us from automatic death and hell)--instituted the gospel of grace--where one could sin and be forgiven, as an opportunity.

The "Redemption" I refer to here is the Redemption from automatic death and hell--which befell all men due to the Fall.

"Redeem" is also used in other ways--such as in Mosiah 16:

 2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.

 3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

 4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

 5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.

For me--one "redemption" is speaking about the free gift of the Atonement in absolving all men from the condemnation of the Fall((Blood Atonement for the sins of the world, resurrection)--the other--where Christ denies one the forgiveness of sins(not redeemed from their sins--damnation--second death)--in the final judgment--according to their works.

John 5:28-29--King James Version (KJV)

²⁸ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

²⁹ And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/14/2017 at 5:38 PM, Storm Rider said:

Kenngo,I still think this is an issue of semantics and conflating of concepts. Before Jesus came to earth we had our free agency.

It is true that we had agency before coming to earth to the extent that we were able to choose to come to earth or not.  However, agency is not a simple, static, one-has-all-of-the-agency-one-will-ever-be-given-at-one-time-or-one-does-not proposition: how one chooses to use what agency one has can either enhance the degree of agency one has, or it can reduce it.  (For example, if I choose to use drugs, I may surrender a good deal of my agency to addiction, while, if I choose to not yield to that particular temptation, I retain a higher degree of agency, or ability to choose.)  Obviously, Christ made the most of His premortal agency, because, in the premortal life, He did everything required of Him to receive exaltation except for one thing: Compare Matthew 5:48 with 3 Nephi 12:48.  

Quote

That was part of God's plan.  The verse you quoted does not conflict with that - had we not had God's plan we would remain completely subject to Satan. Jesus' entrance into the world was contingent upon us already having free agency.

Yes, you're right, to a degree.  However, as I have noted, agency is not a simple, static, one-has-it-or-one-does-not proposition: 1/3 of the premortal hosts of heaven chose to surrender their agency to Satan, while 2/3 chose to enhance their agency still further by coming to earth and experiencing a mortal probationary state.  The more we utilize our mortal agency wisely, the closer we draw to our Heavenly Parents the more we become like Them, and the more choices we become free to make.  "He that receiveth light and continueth in God receiveth more light, and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (Doctrine and Covenants 50:24).

Quote

He did not die so that we could have it - it is as if you are going from A to Z and missing the important steps in between - which is conflating different concepts and then saying they are the same.  

If, in sending 2/3 of His and Heavenly Mother's spirit children to earth, Heavenly Father and Mother ran the risk that sin would separate those 2/3 from Them permanently, They needed to provide a way for sin to be overcome so that sin would not impose a permanent separation of those spirit children from them.  And even the best of us still need a Savior: "For as in Adam all die (both spiritually, because of sin, and physically, because of physical death), so, in Christ shall all be made alive (everyone will be made alive physically by the resurrection, and those who choose to repent will be made alive spiritually by being allowed back into the presence of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother)" (1 Corinthians 15:22).  And "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

Quote

His birth did not enhance our free agency - right?

I don't know how one could say, on the one hand, that he agrees with what I take to be the clear implication of 2 Nephi 9:7-9 that, but for Christ's death and resurrection, our spirits automatically would become subject to Satan, and yet can say, on the other hand, that Christ's birth did not enhance our agency.  If His death and resurrection enhanced our agency, as I believe 2 Nephi 9:7-9 teaches, then simple logic dictates that yes, His birth also enhanced our agency, because without His birth, obviously, His death and resurrection would not have been possible.  As I hope I have made clear above, whatever agency we had in the premortal life to choose God's plan that we be allowed to come to earth, we have even more agency (because we have more opportunity to make choices) now that we're here on earth.  Meanwhile, the 2/3 who followed Satan are completely subject to him. 

 

Quote

His birth, death, and resurrection gave us the opportunity to become sons and daughters of God the Father - to live with him - Jesus' perfection becomes our perfection.  

Yes and no.  We have already been begotten spiritually of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.  Since this earthly probation entails a separation from our Heavenly Parents (or, in other words, a spiritual death), we must make the choices which will enable us to return to our Heavenly Parents: "Wherefore ... men are free to choose liberty and eternal life through the great mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil" (2 Nephi 2:27).

Quote

I think to use a statement like - Jesus' death gave us free agency is confusing.

I don't think I've said that.  If I have, please feel free to point it out to me, and I will be happy to retract it or to modify/clarify it.  Christ's birth, death, and resurrection surely gave us a much greater opportunity to exercise our agency, particularly in light of 2 Nephi 9:7-9.  Yes, you're right, as far as you go: We needed enough agency to be allowed to choose to come here to earth, but again, agency is not a one-has-all-the-agency-one-will-ever-be-given-at-one-time-or-one-does-not proposition.  How we choose to use whatever agency we have at any given moment can either add to the "reservoir" of agency we possess, or it can subtract from it. We can choose "captivity and death" 

Quote

 Free agency is a requisite of the Plan, but Jesus' actual death/sacrifice gave us so much more.  It is like looking at the statue of the Christus and focusing a talk on the wonder of the statue's right foot's little toe.  Do you see what I am trying to say however poorly?  The Christus does have a little toe, but it is just the improper focus when describing the wonder of the statue.  Make sense?

No; not really. Life is (at least one of) God's gift(s) to me: What I make of it, through the exercise of free will (or agency) is my gift to Him, but that gift is only as valuable as it is to Him because it is what I chose to make of my life – what I chose to give him.  Essentially, the only thing I have left to give back to God that He did not give me in the first place is my will ... my agency.

(Incidentally, what do you make of Elder Marion D. Hanks's address, linked earlier in the thread, that aligns closely agency and atonement? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/10/agency-and-love?lang=eng. Guess he's barking up the wrong tree, too, eh? )

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Yirgacheffe]

On 2/12/2017 at 9:17 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

OK, here comes some serious heresy. The following accepts that we don't really have a clear knowledge of the historical Jesus, his teaching, and the events of his life.

In terms of theology, I find the idea that God requires the justice for sin an unreasonable doctrine. Considering we can forgive one another without requiring punishment of the offender, I don't think it's reasonable to imagine that either God or a set of of physical laws require it. For example, if my son punches my daughter in the face and comes to me to make things right, if I and his sister only require him to say sorry or perhaps don't require anything to forgive him (that sometimes happens with the most stubborn of children), there isn't some injustice in the family that brews under the surface. Instead, the act is eventually forgotten and everyone gets on like it never happened. Neither does the boy have some hidden guilt weighing him down for the rest of his life (I could imagine situations where an unhealthy family, personal, or religious mechanism would preserve that guilt, but frankly, people let stuff slide all the time and it becomes water under the bridge, forgotten and past). I do believe that we should learn from our mistakes, but that is different than suffering for our sins.

Christ's death, to me personally, is a symbol that we can freely forgive each other and ourselves. God, through Jesus, teaches us that he himself is willing to take on our guilt and suffering, and that has made the human race a happier and more productive species who feels empowered to both change themselves and to forgive others. In other words, there didn't need to be an actual blood atonement to enable human change and forgiveness, but Christ's contribution through his death was to help us tap into the practical applications of these concepts. I know that's not how Christians traditionally understand Christ's sacrifice for sin, but I find that to be a sustainable interpretation.

In short Christ was sacrificed not because God needed justice, but because we needed understanding?

[Benjamin Seeker]

41 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

In short Christ was sacrificed not because God needed justice, but because we needed understanding?

That's a nice summary of how I feel.

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It is true that we had agency before coming to earth to the extent that we were able to choose to come to earth or not.  However, agency is not a simple, static, one-has-all-of-the-agency-one-will-ever-be-given-at-one-time-or-one-does-not proposition: how one chooses to use what agency one has can either enhance the degree of agency one has, or it can reduce it.  (For example, if I choose to use drugs, I may surrender a good deal of my agency to addiction, while, if I choose to not yield to that particular temptation, I retain a higher degree of agency, or ability to choose.)  Obviously, Christ made the most of His premortal agency, because, in the premortal life, He did everything required of Him to receive exaltation except for one thing: Compare Matthew 5:48 with 3 Nephi 12:48.  

Yes, you're right, to a degree.  However, as I have noted, agency is not a simple, static, one-has-it-or-one-does-not proposition: 1/3 of the premortal hosts of heaven chose to surrender their agency to Satan, while 2/3 chose to enhance their agency still further by coming to earth and experiencing a mortal probationary state.  The more we utilize our mortal agency wisely, the closer we draw to our Heavenly Parents the more we become like Them, and the more choices we become free to make.  "He that receiveth light and continueth in God receiveth more light, and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (Doctrine and Covenants 50:24).

If, in sending 2/3 of His and Heavenly Mother's spirit children to earth, Heavenly Father and Mother ran the risk that sin would separate those 2/3 from Them permanently, They needed to provide a way for sin to be overcome so that sin would not impose a permanent separation of those spirit children from them.  And even the best of us still need a Savior: "For as in Adam all die (both spiritually, because of sin, and physically, because of physical death), so, in Christ shall all be made alive (everyone will be made alive physically by the resurrection, and those who choose to repent will be made alive spiritually by being allowed back into the presence of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother)" (1 Corinthians 15:22).  And "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

I don't know how one could say, on the one hand, that he agrees with what I take to be the clear implication of 2 Nephi 9:7-9 that, but for Christ's death and resurrection, our spirits automatically would become subject to Satan, and yet can say, on the other hand, that Christ's birth did not enhance our agency.  If His death and resurrection enhanced our agency, as I believe 2 Nephi 9:7-9 teaches, then simple logic dictates that yes, His birth also enhanced our agency, because without His birth, obviously, His death and resurrection would not have been possible.  As I hope I have made clear above, whatever agency we had in the premortal life to choose God's plan that we be allowed to come to earth, we have even more agency (because we have more opportunity to make choices) now that we're here on earth.  Meanwhile, the 2/3 who followed Satan are completely subject to him. 

 

Yes and no.  We have already been begotten spiritually of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.  Since this earthly probation entails a separation from our Heavenly Parents (or, in other words, a spiritual death), we must make the choices which will enable us to return to our Heavenly Parents: "Wherefore ... men are free to choose liberty and eternal life through the great mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil" (2 Nephi 2:27).

I don't think I've said that.  If I have, please feel free to point it out to me, and I will be happy to retract it or to modify/clarify it.  Christ's birth, death, and resurrection surely gave us a much greater opportunity to exercise our agency, particularly in light of 2 Nephi 9:7-9.  Yes, you're right, as far as you go: We needed enough agency to be allowed to choose to come here to earth, but again, agency is not a one-has-all-the-agency-one-will-ever-be-given-at-one-time-or-one-does-not proposition.  How we choose to use whatever agency we have at any given moment can either add to the "reservoir" of agency we possess, or it can subtract from it. We can choose "captivity and death" 

No; not really. Life is (at least one of) God's gift(s) to me: What I make of it, through the exercise of free will (or agency) is my gift to Him, but that gift is only as valuable as it is to Him because it is what I chose to make of my life – what I chose to give him.  Essentially, the only thing I have left to give back to God that He did not give me in the first place is my will ... my agency.

(Incidentally, what do you make of Elder Marion D. Hanks's address, linked earlier in the thread, that aligns closely agency and atonement? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/10/agency-and-love?lang=eng. Guess he's barking up the wrong tree, too, eh? )

 

The link did not work - it took me to a page, but not to a talk by Marion D Hanks.  I did a search and found this GC talk - https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/10/agency-and-love?lang=eng - was that the one you had thought to link?  

Kenn, we seldom disagree on things or at least it is in my mind as such.  For me, you are placing an overemphasis on free agency when it comes to the Atonement.  I could give countless talks and never discuss agency in the context of the Atonement and I find that most people who talk on the Atonement do the same thing.  

In the talk I linked to Brother Hanks discusses a convert who spoke at a stake conference.  While bearing her testimony she shared the following:  “No one ever helped me to understand that I was worth anything,” she said, “that I was special in any way. And then the missionaries taught me about Jesus Christ and his love and the God who sent him. They taught me that Jesus died for me—for me. I am valuable! I am valuable! He died for me.”  Her simple statement sums up my thoughts of the Atonement - I had no choice in the matter and yet he died for me.  Whether I accept him or not he has made it so that I will live again.  My agency is not in play at this point of the Atonement - it is a gift freely given.

As I stated before - we disagree only on the emphasis given the concept of free agency within the context of the Atonement.  We do not disagree on the importance of Free Agency in the Plan of Salvation.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

In short Christ was sacrificed not because God needed justice, but because we needed understanding?

 

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That's a nice summary of how I feel.

God doesn't need justice. We do. Jesus will be called the Father because He is just, but took justice upon Himself. The very fabric of society is based upon justice. Without it, society devolves into anarchy. Justice is the bare minimum - it demands equality. God would not be God if He were not just. If I murder Y, and God will do nothing about it, why then would He be God? That is a recipe for complete anarchy and reign of satan. Christ embodies justice because He accepted our just results for us - or at least offers to. If we do not repent, we will receive the just result - make no mistake. Without this understanding Christianity and a just society fall to utter ruin. Because the United States was founded on the basis of justice and freedom, it became a great nation as the Book of Mormon prophesied. It is based on the very notions of God's justice - which again is a bare minimum of the law. Without it you have socialism, totalitarianism and all sorts of worse solutions which oppress freedoms, and serve to keep nations poor. That is why China gave up on socialism for a more hybrid system somewhat emulating ours. It is why the USSR collapsed. The fact that you see forgiveness as being greater speaks well for you, but let's face it, the world is not there yet. I do look forward to that day.

Blessings

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

God doesn't need justice. We do. Jesus will be called the Father because He is just, but took justice upon Himself. The very fabric of society is based upon justice. Without it, society devolves into anarchy. Justice is the bare minimum - it demands equality. God would not be God if He were not just. If I murder Y, and God will do nothing about it, why then would He be God? That is a recipe for complete anarchy and reign of satan. Christ embodies justice because He accepted our just results for us - or at least offers to. If we do not repent, we will receive the just result - make no mistake. Without this understanding Christianity and a just society fall to utter ruin. Because the United States was founded on the basis of justice and freedom, it became a great nation as the Book of Mormon prophesied. It is based on the very notions of God's justice - which again is a bare minimum of the law. Without it you have socialism, totalitarianism and all sorts of worse solutions which oppress freedoms, and serve to keep nations poor. That is why China gave up on socialism for a more hybrid system somewhat emulating ours. It is why the USSR collapsed. The fact that you see forgiveness as being greater speaks well for you, but let's face it, the world is not there yet. I do look forward to that day.

Blessings

Rev, I like your point about the practical need for justice to run a society. I don't agree that those concerns would exist in an ideal/eternal realm. If people, in some afterlife existence, feel the need for justice, meaning they won't forgive wrongdoing except there is some reparation made, I doubt they'll be satisfied by Christ's suffering. My guess is the person who is willing to forgive another on account of third party vicarious suffering will also be willing to forgive that same transgression without suffering.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Rev, I like your point about the practical need for justice to run a society. I don't agree that those concerns would exist in an ideal/eternal realm.

This world is simply a model for the eternities. In the eternities there is some segregation from non-followers, and our bodies will be more perfect, but we still have other spirits to get along with unless you think God is going to intervene in every little thing and personal thought... I personally think we will feel much more connected and the idea of sin will be completely abhorrent and probably foreseen by others which will prevent it in the celestial kingdom at least, can't really say what happens in the other kingdoms.

Quote

If people, in some afterlife existence, feel the need for justice, meaning they won't forgive wrongdoing except there is some reparation made, I doubt they'll be satisfied by Christ's suffering. My guess is the person who is willing to forgive another on account of third party vicarious suffering will also be willing to forgive that same transgression without suffering.

I don't really forgive others on the account of Christ's vicarious suffering. If I forgive them, did Christ need to suffer at all? Are you suggesting that God should force me to forgive so that Christ need not suffer so that justice can always be met?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That's a nice summary of how I feel.

For me the key is in the BELIEF we are forgiven. Then we can forgive ourselves.

We cannot prove if any of it happened but that becomes irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a reason to forgive ourselves. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Webster]

"The Atonement makes our agency meaningful."

That's how I would say it if I had to come up with a short statement that relates the Atonement to our agency.

I would say that the Atonement covers our sins (which happen because of our agency), and makes redemption, salvation, and exaltation possible.  I don't think the Atonement made agency possible in the sense that it created it or that we have it only because of the Atonement.

Without the Atonement, it wouldn't matter what we did---there would only be one outcome:  Death.  Therefore, agency without the Atonement produces only one outcome which is meaningless.

But with the Atonement, our agency is meaningful because it makes it possible for us to choose either life or death.  " . . . ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life." (2 Nephi 10:23)  To me, agency is being free to act for yourself---we are agents unto ourselves.  Being able to make the ultimate choice between eternal life or death is what we have when we couple our agency with the Savior's Atonement and God's plan of redemption.  The Atonement allows us to use our agency (through repentance, etc.) to make the ultimate choice between life or death, therefore the Atonement makes our agency extremely meaningful.

[Calm]

Well said.  This was the point I was making in my post, I think your version is much more intelligent.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Webster said:

"The Atonement makes our agency meaningful."

That's how I would say it if I had to come up with a short statement that relates the Atonement to our agency.

I would say that the Atonement covers our sins (which happen because of our agency), and makes redemption, salvation, and exaltation possible.  I don't think the Atonement made agency possible in the sense that it created it or that we have it only because of the Atonement.

Without the Atonement, it wouldn't matter what we did---there would only be one outcome:  Death.  Therefore, agency without the Atonement produces only one outcome which is meaningless.

But with the Atonement, our agency is meaningful because it makes it possible for us to choose either life or death.  " . . . ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life." (2 Nephi 10:23)  To me, agency is being free to act for yourself---we are agents unto ourselves.  Being able to make the ultimate choice between eternal life or death is what we have when we couple our agency with the Savior's Atonement and God's plan of redemption.  The Atonement allows us to use our agency (through repentance, etc.) to make the ultimate choice between life or death, therefore the Atonement makes our agency extremely meaningful.

Great post. 

 

[Five Solas]

On 2/16/2017 at 8:24 PM, Webster said:

"The Atonement makes our agency meaningful."

That's how I would say it if I had to come up with a short statement that relates the Atonement to our agency.

I would say that the Atonement covers our sins (which happen because of our agency), and makes redemption, salvation, and exaltation possible.  I don't think the Atonement made agency possible in the sense that it created it or that we have it only because of the Atonement.

Without the Atonement, it wouldn't matter what we did---there would only be one outcome:  Death.  Therefore, agency without the Atonement produces only one outcome which is meaningless.

But with the Atonement, our agency is meaningful because it makes it possible for us to choose either life or death.  " . . . ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life." (2 Nephi 10:23)  To me, agency is being free to act for yourself---we are agents unto ourselves.  Being able to make the ultimate choice between eternal life or death is what we have when we couple our agency with the Savior's Atonement and God's plan of redemption.  The Atonement allows us to use our agency (through repentance, etc.) to make the ultimate choice between life or death, therefore the Atonement makes our agency extremely meaningful.

Calm and bluebell's enthusiasm for your post notwithstanding, your point of view is highly questionable for at least two reasons. 

First, what you write could never be universally applicable.  In a world of 7 billion, many millions die before the LDS "Age of Accountability" and therefore have no need of repentance/baptism/atonement (because they "cannot sin" as numerous LDS authorities have stated over the years).  No sin.  Nothing to "atone" for.  Full stop. 

Second, your words "eternal life or death" simply serve to generate confusion among LDS.  Some argue any "kingdom" less than Celestial is the alternative to "everlasting life" in Daniel 12:2.  Some say eternal life includes the Terrestrial Kingdom.  And some say the Telestial Kingdom counts.  And some LDS say even Judas Iscariot doesn't inherit "Outer Darkness"--meaning it's sparsely populated indeed, if at all.  Do your own poll and you'll soon discover there's simply no consensus to be had among LDS over what constitutes eternal life/death.  Tell us, how do you have a choice--meaningful, ultimate or otherwise--if the alternatives are simply unknown and unknowable? 

I'll gladly take correction if my premise in either of my objections is flawed.  I look forward to reading your response. 

:0) 

--Erik

________________________________________

So ask yourself now, can you forgive her
If she begs you to?
Ask yourself, can you even deliver
What she demands of you?

--Pet Shop Boys, 1993

 

[Webster]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

First, . . . many millions die before the LDS "Age of Accountability" and therefore have no need of repentance/baptism/atonement (because they "cannot sin" as numerous LDS authorities have stated over the years).  No sin.  Nothing to "atone" for.  Full stop. 

Second, your words "eternal life or death" simply serve to generate confusion among LDS. . . .

First, those who are unaccountable and without sin still need the atonement.  The atonement covers more than personal sin.  Under the law of the gospel, little children are deemed innocent and unaccountable—it's an unconditional benefit of the Savior's atonement and mercy.  Full stop.

Second, the idea of eternal life or eternal death comes from the Book of Mormon.  They're not my words.  It was not my intent to create such animosity.

[Five Solas]

20 minutes ago, Webster said:

First, those who are unaccountable and without sin still need the atonement.  The atonement covers more than personal sin.  Under the law of the gospel, little children are deemed innocent and unaccountable—it's an unconditional benefit of the Savior's atonement and mercy.  Full stop.

Second, the idea of eternal life or eternal death comes from the Book of Mormon.  They're not my words.  It was not my intent to create such animosity.

Appreciate the response, Webster.  Perhaps you could unpack the part I put in bold ("the atonement covers more than personal sin").  What do you mean by this?  What other kinds of sin do you have in mind? 

As to eternal life/eternal death--does the Book of Mormon serve to clarify the confusion among LDS I described above regarding applicable kingdoms/the unlikelihood of an actual Hell being populated?  Can you clear this up?  Please tell us how do you interpret it.   

--Erik

Edited February 19, 2017 by Five Solas
extra letter

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the response, Webster.  Perhaps you could unpack the part I put in bold ("the atonement covers more than personal sin").  What do you mean by this?  What other kinds of sin do you have in mind? 

As to eternal life/eternal death--does the Book of Mormon serve to clarify the confusion among LDS I described above regarding applicable kingdoms/the unlikelihood of an actual Hell being populated?  Can you clear this up?  Please tell us how do you interpret it.   

--Erik

https://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng&old=true

“As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God…”

“…Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins.”

That should be enough to explain things, but I’ll flesh it out a little from the rest of that article since you still seem to be fuzzy!

There are universal effects of the Fall for both the accountable and not accountable (physical death) and personal effects for only the accountable (spiritual death), for the unaccountable are spiritually alive in Christ (See Moroni 8:22: “For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—”).

The doctrine of foreordination in the plan of salvation allows that those deemed to be alive in Christ may come to earth as “unaccountable” -- they cannot be eternally condemned by the universal effects of the Fall. They receive their second estate (mortality) without the same spiritual probation as the accountable (Abraham 3:25). This is where agency comes in: the accountable have it in mortality, the unaccountable don’t. The atonement redeems both those with and without agency during the second estate.

This is how agency is made possible for both sets of people through Christ’s atonement (which came by way of His suffering). The accountable are given a choice to become alive in Christ, and the unaccountable do not have that choice taken away.

[Webster]

CV75:  Wow.  Very nicely said.

Five Solas:  My intent in participating in this discuss was to 1) answer your poll, and 2) leave a comment regarding my view of agency and the atonement.

I don't care to be drawn into a bigger discussion.  I've participated in forums in the past and I find that they're a poor form of communication.  Real-time verbal communication is always better.  If you'd like to communicate further, leave me a message and I'll get back to you with a phone number and we can set up a real conversation; otherwise, CV75 said things well enough that I'll just say Amen.

[halconero]

23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Calm and bluebell's enthusiasm for your post notwithstanding, your point of view is highly questionable for at least two reasons. 

First, what you write could never be universally applicable.  In a world of 7 billion, many millions die before the LDS "Age of Accountability" and therefore have no need of repentance/baptism/atonement (because they "cannot sin" as numerous LDS authorities have stated over the years).  No sin.  Nothing to "atone" for.  Full stop. 

Second, your words "eternal life or death" simply serve to generate confusion among LDS.  Some argue any "kingdom" less than Celestial is the alternative to "everlasting life" in Daniel 12:2.  Some say eternal life includes the Terrestrial Kingdom.  And some say the Telestial Kingdom counts.  And some LDS say even Judas Iscariot doesn't inherit "Outer Darkness"--meaning it's sparsely populated indeed, if at all.  Do your own poll and you'll soon discover there's simply no consensus to be had among LDS over what constitutes eternal life/death.  Tell us, how do you have a choice--meaningful, ultimate or otherwise--if the alternatives are simply unknown and unknowable? 

I'll gladly take correction if my premise in either of my objections is flawed.  I look forward to reading your response. 

:0) 

--Erik

________________________________________

So ask yourself now, can you forgive her
If she begs you to?
Ask yourself, can you even deliver
What she demands of you?

--Pet Shop Boys, 1993

 

There are multiple scriptures dictating that children need the Atonement.

[CV75]

On 2/18/2017 at 6:17 PM, Five Solas said:

Calm and bluebell's enthusiasm for your post notwithstanding, your point of view is highly questionable for at least two reasons. 

First, what you write could never be universally applicable.  In a world of 7 billion, many millions die before the LDS "Age of Accountability" and therefore have no need of repentance/baptism/atonement (because they "cannot sin" as numerous LDS authorities have stated over the years).  No sin.  Nothing to "atone" for.  Full stop. 

Second, your words "eternal life or death" simply serve to generate confusion among LDS.  Some argue any "kingdom" less than Celestial is the alternative to "everlasting life" in Daniel 12:2.  Some say eternal life includes the Terrestrial Kingdom.  And some say the Telestial Kingdom counts.  And some LDS say even Judas Iscariot doesn't inherit "Outer Darkness"--meaning it's sparsely populated indeed, if at all.  Do your own poll and you'll soon discover there's simply no consensus to be had among LDS over what constitutes eternal life/death.  Tell us, how do you have a choice--meaningful, ultimate or otherwise--if the alternatives are simply unknown and unknowable? 

I'll gladly take correction if my premise in either of my objections is flawed.  I look forward to reading your response. 

:0) 

--Erik

________________________________________

So ask yourself now, can you forgive her
If she begs you to?
Ask yourself, can you even deliver
What she demands of you?

--Pet Shop Boys, 1993

 

There is no confusion, just various levels of meaning and understanding, so each “alternative” is clear, orderly and sensible in its proper context. While each person makes his choices according to his personal understanding anyway, I would say that most LDS see the sense in any of the alternatives you suggested above. Consensus certainly does not alleviate confusion; it often only makes it unanimous. But understanding context certainly facilitates consensus around the commonality that might be found in superficially contradicting perspectives. This might be one reason why some things seem to get fuzzy for some -- they cannot entertain context, which is essential for the divine administration of justice, mercy and love (the atonement). But this is what God does when He allows for Adam's transgression as opposed to ours, and each individual's sphere of accountability and non-accountability.

So the dichotomy of the overarching principles of eternal life and eternal death, no matter how they are conceptualized for different purposes, circumstances and contexts, is what allows for choice.