Are Prophets Exemplars?

[Honorentheos]

 Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, has a view that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world.

His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding a religion then builds from this starting point by asking: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?

- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?

For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's true Church

Q2: What is the solution?
A: Restoration of Christ's true Church, and restoration of the individual with God

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances in both cases

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: ...

In Mormonism, one speaks of Christ as an exemplar but I'd argue this is in an almost overly idealized way. Plus, while Christ may be the perfect example, He only partitially models the path for Mormons in His baptism and ministry. He fails to model the full path to exhaltation through celestial marriage, raising family, and a host of other critical milestones on the path. I think the true exemplars in Mormonism are the priesthood leaders starting with Joseph Smith. It's Smith's example of going into the grove that investigators are taught to follow, first by reading scripture and then by praying for divine confirmation. Members look to modern day leaders for inspiration, for encouragement to draw from when facing challenges, for modeling how to be a Latter-day Saint. They admire their marriages, their families, how they followed a career path of some kind while also rising to their leadership role in the Church. Their path is one the membership constantly reflects on in conferences and talks, Ensign articles and mini-biopics between sessions of conference.

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

Edited August 2, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Maidservant]

43 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

 Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, has a view that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world.

His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding a religion then builds from this starting point by asking: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?

- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?

For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's true Church

Q2: What is the solution?
A: Restoration of Christ's true Church, and restoration of the individual with God

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances in both cases

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: ...

A:  The Fall

B:  The Plan of Salvation

C:  The Atonement of the Savior (and accepting it and becoming like the Savior)

D:  The Savior (our Example)

Edited August 2, 2017 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

I heard this comparison device as well (or something like it) from a professor I took American Religion from.  (He didn't say it was original to himself.)  I've been rather fascinated by it since, and always keep it in mind.  I wrote the following bit at one point:

= = =

In a religion class at university, our professor provided a framework for our comparative studies.  He said that every religion has their idea of what got broken as well as the idea of what we have to do to fix it.  Each religion has a 'damage' and a 'fix' that is unique to it alternative to the 'damage/fix' philosophies of other religions.  As Ernest Valea puts it, "In assessing the meaning of salvation in world religions we must analyze three important aspects: The resources needed for attaining salvation, the actual way of getting saved, and the meaning of being saved."

But we can all agree that something got broken, because this ain't it.

= = =

 

[Honorentheos]

6 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

A:  The Fall

B:  The Plan of Salvation

C:  The Atonement of the Savior (and accepting it and becoming like the Savior)

D:  The Savior (our Example)

Couldn't every Christian group answer this way? And if so, wouldn't that mean they are all equally valid when it comes to looking to them to find the solution to the problem?

[Honorentheos]

4 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I heard this comparison device as well (or something like it) from a professor I took American Religion from.  (He didn't say it was original to himself.)  I've been rather fascinated by it since, and always keep it in mind.  I wrote the following bit at one point:

= = =

In a religion class at university, our professor provided a framework for our comparative studies.  He said that every religion has their idea of what got broken as well as the idea of what we have to do to fix it.  Each religion has a 'damage' and a 'fix' that is unique to it alternative to the 'damage/fix' philosophies of other religions.  As Ernest Valea puts it, "In assessing the meaning of salvation in world religions we must analyze three important aspects: The resources needed for attaining salvation, the actual way of getting saved, and the meaning of being saved."

But we can all agree that something got broken, because this ain't it.

= = =

 

I do think this is it, actually. One finds solutions of a different kind when one confronts this.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

 Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, has a view that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world.

His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding a religion then builds from this starting point by asking: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?

- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?

For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's true Church

Q2: What is the solution?
A: Restoration of Christ's true Church, and restoration of the individual with God

The problem of accretions which prevent access to primitive Christianity has often resulted in a desire for a restoration:  This was true for the Puritans, the Campbellites, and even the Roman Catholics at Vatican II.  The solutions may differ somewhat in each case (based on the sophistication of the seeker), but the desire is sincere and strong.

For Jewish Orthodoxy, the problem was a lack of joy and life in Judaism.

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances in both cases

The techniques are not usually prescribed, but humans typically make the first move with study, prayer, etc.  Ordinances and priesthood may actually be faulted in some cases, the lower Protestant Reformation denying the need for priesthood entirely (except as the common priesthood of the believer), the high church Protestant Reformation having full continuity of authoritative priesthood and sacraments.  The Roman Catholics at Vatican II adopted the vernacular liturgy, reduced the number of saints and holy days, and tried mightily to get back to the primitive church which they had long claimed to be.

For Judaism this meant that Rabbi Israel (the Baal Shem Tov) revived Judaism with Hasidism.  He brought the magic and excitement back, but without changing the doctrine.  Anthropologists think of such phenomena as a revitalization movement (Mazeway reformulation), and this can take place in a revival atmosphere -- the sort of thing typical of old style Methodism within the Church of England.

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: ...

The exemplar may be Moses, Rabbi Israel, or some other major figure within Jewish tradition.  However, within Christian traditions it may be Jesus, Holy Mary, or some great leader, from Paul to the present -- although most of the great preachers have worked up the crowd to focus on Christ, and that seems to be true of the LDS tradition as well.

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

In Mormonism, one speaks of Christ as an exemplar but I'd argue this is in an almost overly idealized way. Plus, while Christ may be the perfect example, He only partitially models the path for Mormons in His baptism and ministry. He fails to model the full path to exhaltation through celestial marriage, raising family, and a host of other critical milestones on the path. I think the true exemplars in Mormonism are the priesthood leaders starting with Joseph Smith. It's Smith's example of going into the grove that investigators are taught to follow, first by reading scripture and then by praying for divine confirmation. Members look to modern day leaders for inspiration, for encouragement to draw from when facing challenges, for modeling how to be a Latter-day Saint. They admire their marriages, their families, how they followed a career path of some kind while also rising to their leadership role in the Church. Their path is one the membership constantly reflects on in conferences and talks, Ensign articles and mini-biopics between sessions of conference.

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

It is true that Mormon leaders are admired and do exemplify what good Gospel practice should be.  However, that is equally true of Christian pastors generally, and perhaps even moreso in Roman Catholicism.  Indeed, veneration of priests has led to a great many tragedies when their fallibility was not accepted as normal by parishioners.  As for the young, unsophisticated Joseph, he simply asked a question based on James 1:5.  He had no idea how it might be answered, or what the consequences might be -- the restoration of primitive Christianity and more ancient biblical religion.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Couldn't every Christian group answer this way? And if so, wouldn't that mean they are all equally valid when it comes to looking to them to find the solution to the problem?

Many Christian groups. No, there are too many contradictions in core principles underneath this umbrella to say they are all equally valid.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

Couldn't every Christian group answer this way? And if so, wouldn't that mean they are all equally valid when it comes to looking to them to find the solution to the problem?

I didn't know we were discussing validity.

I don't have a problem validating what other people know or believe for themselves.

But it's beside the point.  I still presented the nugget of what The Church of Jesus Christ's project is (or as I best understand it; I simply don't agree with the fair suggestion you made).  I think it's important to understand what a belief system says about what they say the problem/fix is.  Sure, we could answer that in various ways for Mormonism, for example, the need to create an eternal family as the problem/fix.  But the Plan of Salvation (per LDS) is Creation, Fall, Atonement, Judgment, Resurrection/Exaltation/Salvation/Sanctification/Eternal Life(Families).

It's possible for many different belief systems to have the same or similar problem/fix, doesn't invalidate any of them just by virtue of it being repeated.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

I do think this is it, actually. One finds solutions of a different kind when one confronts this.

I actually agree with you.  I re-read what I put there, and realized I had given the quote out of context.  I was actually describing the state of understanding of most humans and was challenging it (in a longer essay that contained that quote).  As you say--"one find solutions of a different kind when one confronts this."  Lovely.  I absolutely challenge the notion ("problem") that we live in an inferior existence and need to fix anything.  Or at least not in the traditional manner.  I guess it could be said that (to me) it needs to be fixed our idea that we think anything needs to be fixed.  lol.

[Honorentheos]

4 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I didn't know we were discussing validity.

I don't have a problem validating what other people know or believe for themselves.

But it's beside the point.  I still presented the nugget of what The Church of Jesus Christ's project is (or as I best understand it; I simply don't agree with the fair suggestion you made).  I think it's important to understand what a belief system says about what they say the problem/fix is.  Sure, we could answer that in various ways for Mormonism, for example, the need to create an eternal family as the problem/fix.  But the Plan of Salvation (per LDS) is Creation, Fall, Atonement, Judgment, Resurrection/Exaltation/Salvation/Sanctification/Eternal Life(Families).

It's possible for many different belief systems to have the same or similar problem/fix, doesn't invalidate any of them just by virtue of it being repeated.

Supposing I were to say I need a car to get to work, and this is the main problem. If truly the problem, wouldn't any car do? But if I expand the problem by saying I need to also carry 5 other people from my car pool the problem isn't just that I need a car to get to work. I think the lds views the problem as also encompassing the state of Christianity. Wouldn't that be fair to say?

[Honorentheos]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Many Christian groups. No, there are too many contradictions in core principles underneath this umbrella to say they are all equally valid.

I think this is very consistent and necessary to understanding Mormonism as a religion. 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I didn't know we were discussing validity.

I don't have a problem validating what other people know or believe for themselves.

But it's beside the point.  I still presented the nugget of what The Church of Jesus Christ's project is (or as I best understand it; I simply don't agree with the fair suggestion you made).  I think it's important to understand what a belief system says about what they say the problem/fix is.  Sure, we could answer that in various ways for Mormonism, for example, the need to create an eternal family as the problem/fix.  But the Plan of Salvation (per LDS) is Creation, Fall, Atonement, Judgment, Resurrection/Exaltation/Salvation/Sanctification/Eternal Life(Families).

It's possible for many different belief systems to have the same or similar problem/fix, doesn't invalidate any of them just by virtue of it being repeated.

I think the problem is the premise itself

Pretty much only Protestantism starts with the idea that there is a problem with the world.   We are all condemned to hell if it were not for Jesus- man is born in sin.

 And for us the fall is not a problem- it was a choice to give us all free agency,  The Plan of Salvation is not really to "fix" the fall- it is simply to play out our educations here in this university called Earth so we can graduate and get on with our eternal lives

I don't see working your way through college as a problem but as  a trial and sacrifice we intentionally make to make things better for ourselves in the long run

I always assume that basic assumptions are incorrect. That is always and absolutely a good basic assumption.

Then if they are not, we can move on.  Don't let someone who disagrees with you frame the argument and set the assumptions- that is my way of seeing it

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I think this is very consistent and necessary to understanding Mormonism as a religion. 

Perhaps that is the problem

[Honorentheos]

The religion of Bukowaki defines the problems entirely differently. Of course one ought to then recognize this means it isn't in fact true to Mormonism. It's sometimes other with its own solutions techniques and exemplars. Wanna prove me right by saying something like you'd usually say here, amigo? Rock on!

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, has a view that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world.

His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding a religion then builds from this starting point by asking: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?

- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?

For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's true Church

Q2: What is the solution?
A: Restoration of Christ's true Church, and restoration of the individual with God

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances in both cases

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: ...

In Mormonism, one speaks of Christ as an exemplar but I'd argue this is in an almost overly idealized way. Plus, while Christ may be the perfect example, He only partitially models the path for Mormons in His baptism and ministry. He fails to model the full path to exhaltation through celestial marriage, raising family, and a host of other critical milestones on the path. I think the true exemplars in Mormonism are the priesthood leaders starting with Joseph Smith. It's Smith's example of going into the grove that investigators are taught to follow, first by reading scripture and then by praying for divine confirmation. Members look to modern day leaders for inspiration, for encouragement to draw from when facing challenges, for modeling how to be a Latter-day Saint. They admire their marriages, their families, how they followed a career path of some kind while also rising to their leadership role in the Church. Their path is one the membership constantly reflects on in conferences and talks, Ensign articles and mini-biopics between sessions of conference.

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

I think Mormonism is unique in that God’s work is described as bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man per the agency of man. This means that Adam’s Fall, or mortality and a telestial life, are not problems to be solved but are necessary stages in our progression enabling us to choose the benefits of the Lord’s Atonement.

With this in mind, Apostasy is not a problem, but an example of requisite death that brings forth life a hundredfold (John 12:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”). The Restoration simply answers that Apostasy according to the eternal law of Christ’s Atonement. The techniques are the conferral of keys to those with faith such as Joseph Smith and his delegates and successors, and their delegates. The Exemplar, per John 12:24 is Jesus Himself. But you say, that is too idealized.

So if you say the techniques are limited to priesthood authority and ordinances (irrespective of something so idealized as faith and power), the exemplars are any who have them, the first being Joseph Smith and his delegates, and their successors.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, has a view that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world.

His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding a religion then builds from this starting point by asking: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?

- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?

For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's true Church

Q2: What is the solution?
A: Restoration of Christ's true Church, and restoration of the individual with God

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances in both cases

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: ...

In Mormonism, one speaks of Christ as an exemplar but I'd argue this is in an almost overly idealized way. Plus, while Christ may be the perfect example, He only partitially models the path for Mormons in His baptism and ministry. He fails to model the full path to exhaltation through celestial marriage, raising family, and a host of other critical milestones on the path. I think the true exemplars in Mormonism are the priesthood leaders starting with Joseph Smith. It's Smith's example of going into the grove that investigators are taught to follow, first by reading scripture and then by praying for divine confirmation. Members look to modern day leaders for inspiration, for encouragement to draw from when facing challenges, for modeling how to be a Latter-day Saint. They admire their marriages, their families, how they followed a career path of some kind while also rising to their leadership role in the Church. Their path is one the membership constantly reflects on in conferences and talks, Ensign articles and mini-biopics between sessions of conference.

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

Interesting post!

Just this past Sunday I was taken aback when my Bishop spoke in the 3rd hour (5th Sunday) meeting about how we follow the prophet who is our example to help us be like Christ. It struck me as strange because we typically think of Jesus as our exemplar to help us be like the Father, not as men being an exemplar to help us be like Jesus who helps us be like the Father. It seemed to be adding an official layer of separation between us and God.

I'm still thinking about this, but I'm prone to reject the idea that any human, by virtue of their calling in the church, should be my example, especially when I don't know them personally and can't see them in situations other than official church settings. Saying the prophet is my example does nothing to help me live my life day to day. On the other hand, there are multiple human examples. Perhaps my father is an example I follow to improve X characteristic and my mom for characteristic Y. But claiming that one person, a stranger, is the example in all ways is overly simplistic and not very helpful. I think it creates leader worship and promotes unrealistic expectations

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the problem is the premise itself

Pretty much only Protestantism starts with the idea that there is a problem with the world.   We are all condemned to hell if it were not for Jesus- man is born in sin.

 And for us the fall is not a problem- it was a choice to give us all free agency,  The Plan of Salvation is not really to "fix" the fall- it is simply to play out our educations here in this university called Earth so we can graduate and get on with our eternal lives

I don't see working your way through college as a problem but as  a trial and sacrifice we intentionally make to make things better for ourselves in the long run

I always assume that basic assumptions are incorrect. That is always and absolutely a good basic assumption.

Then if they are not, we can move on.  Don't let someone who disagrees with you frame the argument and set the assumptions- that is my way of seeing it

 

Maybe you don't like the word "problem", but the fall is absolutely an obstacle (physical and spiritual death) that prevents us from returning to God unless Jesus saves us. The university analogy doesn't hold because according to church teachings we would all be destined to fail out of school unless someone else made up the difference to help us succeed. You seem to be promoting the idea that the church teaches that we are in total control of our own salvation as if Jesus was unnecessary. I don't think that is an accurate representation of LDS theology and is one of the reasons why so many other Christian groups consider us to be non-Christian

[Maidservant]

8 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Supposing I were to say I need a car to get to work, and this is the main problem. If truly the problem, wouldn't any car do? But if I expand the problem by saying I need to also carry 5 other people from my car pool the problem isn't just that I need a car to get to work. I think the lds views the problem as also encompassing the state of Christianity. Wouldn't that be fair to say?

Nevertheless, in my understanding, what I stated is the nugget of what LDS states the project of us being humans on this planet.  Now there are details, of course.  For example, the nature of the atonement and how to go about accepting it will differ from Catholicism to LDS, for example.  The exact flavor of the Fall, what was it that constituted the fall, and why--these will differ.

To me, saying that the main problem for Mormon theology is the (an) apostasy--it is 'a' problem, but not 'the' problem.  And it may make a good discussion to discuss THAT particular problem and the particular fix.  But, as you can see in trying to find an examplar of that problem, it fails; because only Christ can be the necessary exemplar.  Everyone else ultimately fails (although we are always examples to one another of something).

The method you are using is a historical analysis method, not a personal religious understanding method.  It's an interesting way to talk about all the bizniss we've got going on this earth.  I like the method!  And I like what you presented.  (You also said restoring the individual to God, nice).  But it has to be just an interesting way to discuss, not the be-all-end-all of figuring stuff out.  In my opinion.

Also, Priesthood could be an answer for how the atonement and becoming like Christ is accepted and lived, but then you say that Christ is not an exemplar of that; it's okay if you think that, and want to discuss whether that's really the case.  But I'm sure you get that (in terms of historical analysis) Mormons DO see Christ as their Priesthood example (for better or worse; correct or incorrect).  But that is how it is seen.

[Maidservant]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 And for us the fall is not a problem- it was a choice to give us all free agency,  The Plan of Salvation is not really to "fix" the fall- it is simply to play out our educations here in this university called Earth so we can graduate and get on with our eternal lives

I don't see working your way through college as a problem but as  a trial and sacrifice we intentionally make to make things better for ourselves in the long run

 

Lovely.  Yes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does frame 'everything' in terms of progression.

"Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1908, 90. Adam’s fall was a step downward, but it was also a step forward — a step in the eternal march of human progress; and it is by means of this everlasting Gospel, and our own individual efforts in making use of the powers that God has given us, that we lay hold upon eternal life, and go on to perfection."

EDITED:

The Fall of Man and His Redemption

The Great Plan of Happiness

 

By the way, when I was saying I don't find a problem in this world, that is my own current paradigm and experience.  Not necessarily encapsulating LDS theology, because I understand the analysis method of 'problem/fix'.  Although I can find support for my personal understanding and have been led by engaging with scriptures, temple, experience, pondering, further reading, revelation, etc.  For example, I understand that in coming to Earth, we have entered the Holy of Holies.  Not a problem.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Maidservant

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Sin

Q2: What is the solution?
A: The atonement

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Faith, repentance, baptism, all other saving ordinances performed by one who has authority, and enduring to the end.

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: I can list quite a few people who are good examples to me.  Christ is the example of perfection, but that is not something I plan on achieving in this life.  While I look to Christ as an example in Christ-like attributes, he was a perfect being, and as such there is one area that Christ is not an exemplar in - repentance.  I need good examples of sinners, like myself, who turn to Christ and overcome. I am inspired by those who make mistakes and overcome through the proper utilization of the atonement.  That includes prophets, apostles, family, friends, and many, many others whom I look up to. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you don't like the word "problem", but the fall is absolutely an obstacle (physical and spiritual death) that prevents us from returning to God unless Jesus saves us. The university analogy doesn't hold because according to church teachings we would all be destined to fail out of school unless someone else made up the difference to help us succeed. You seem to be promoting the idea that the church teaches that we are in total control of our own salvation as if Jesus was unnecessary. I don't think that is an accurate representation of LDS theology and is one of the reasons why so many other Christian groups consider us to be non-Christian

The Church teaches we are beings of agency, and we are given Adam’s fallen world on one hand and the Lord’s redemption on the other; the choice of where and how to live is entirely ours. Death and condemnation aren’t problems because both redemption and exaltation were established through Christ before the foundation of the world, where mortal death and condemnation came into play. The problem is a matter of perspective and how one presents these truths. When we make a wrong choice, that certainly creates a problem for us, but for no one else (A o F 2) – being placed (D&C 93:30) where we can make such a choice is not a problem.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Couldn't every Christian group answer this way? And if so, wouldn't that mean they are all equally valid when it comes to looking to them to find the solution to the problem?

Every Christian group may be able to claim it, but only one actually has the authority to fully utilize the atonement via baptism, etc. 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I think this is very consistent and necessary to understanding Mormonism as a religion. 

But to boil it down to literal "forms" of priesthood and ordinance without meaning (where all religions have a version of such "forms") will prevent understanding any religion. But yes, if followers do what leaders have done by way of priesthood and ordinances in the beginning (Christ was baptized and so are we), the leaders are exemplars, but not the only ones, depending on their religion's teachings (Matthew 5:48, 3 Nephi 12:48).

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Couldn't every Christian group answer this way? And if so, wouldn't that mean they are all equally valid when it comes to looking to them to find the solution to the problem?

I would say the formula you've come up with (priesthood + ordinance = solution) fails to express all the information accurately.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think the problem is the premise itself

Pretty much only Protestantism starts with the idea that there is a problem with the world.   We are all condemned to hell if it were not for Jesus- man is born in sin.

 And for us the fall is not a problem- it was a choice to give us all free agency,  The Plan of Salvation is not really to "fix" the fall- it is simply to play out our educations here in this university called Earth so we can graduate and get on with our eternal lives

I don't see working your way through college as a problem but as  a trial and sacrifice we intentionally make to make things better for ourselves in the long run

I always assume that basic assumptions are incorrect. That is always and absolutely a good basic assumption.

Then if they are not, we can move on.  Don't let someone who disagrees with you frame the argument and set the assumptions- that is my way of seeing it

 

The Book of Mormon disagrees.