The origin of sinners

[Autonomous]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

What if the eternal nature of our intelligence is a very tough nut to crack, to change and extreme measures are required?

 

The eternal nature of existence - given enough time, simple gentle methods are possible.  Multiverse is a fun topic to explore.  For me, "together forever" is all the energy/mass/information getting all mixed together in a giant melting pot - mixing and mixing again eternally in the great conservation laws pot, forever changing form.  That is a beautiful "heaven" to me, what is gets mixed together with everything, and we all slowly evolve through time with all of it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Christ was way worse than Laban during the time in which He suffered in the garden.

Taking on the consequences and the pains did not turn Christ sinful.  If they had done so, he wouldn’t have been able to do anything with them but suffer.

I appreciate you posting that as you are not the first I have heard say Laban was a type of Christ.  It doesn’t work for me as there was nothing sincere or willing or admirable in Laban’s sacrifice.  I suppose one could look on him as a scapegoat which animal doesn’t chose to be the sacrifice, but even there the symbol is supposed to be without blemish and undeserving of the sacrifice it has to make.  Everything Laban did and was led to his death.  He legally deserved it since he attempted to murder, etc. (see Ken’s link for the reasons to look on Nephi as justified in his execution of Laban).

Edited December 3, 2024 by Calm

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Christ was way worse than Laban during the time in which He suffered in the garden.

This is where your analogy falls off the rails.  Laban’s sins were many and the consequences thereof were significant.  What Christ took upon himself in the Garden was, indeed, weightier than that experienced by Laban.  However, Laban’s consequences had their roots in evil, and he faced them not because he chose to (given the choice, he likely would have opted out of all the consequences of his sins) but because he failed in his attempt to escape them.

By contrast, Christ’s act in the Garden had its roots solely in love and sacrifice, not in sin.  Thus you can understand why others might believe that your idea that “Christ was way worse than Laban during the time in which He suffered in the garden” mischaracterizes what happened in the Garden.

You’ll recall that the divinely directed “type” of the sacrifice of the Son involved an unspotted animal.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Although He was sinless, He was treated as if He was the ultimate, eternal, worst sinner to ever exist.

This idea also seems misplaced as it seems to posit that the only source of pain is sin.  Both the Father and the Son feel sorrow and pain, and because of their perfect love the depth of that sorrow and pain is deeper than can be felt by any sinner.  Thus an analogy comparing Divine sorrow with its roots in love to the sorrow and pain of the natural man misses the mark as it fails to recognize the differences between two.  Christ was treated in the Garden as a spotless sacrifice willingly atoning for all who will accept that atonement…so, again, you can understand why some might deem inappropriate saying that in making a loving, willing sacrifice Christ “was treated as if He was the ultimate, eternal, worst sinner to ever exist.”

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

The eternal nature of existence - given enough time, simple gentle methods are possible.

How do you know this?  The analogy that a drop of water will wear down a mountain that I hear some use doesn’t work for a human mind that can constantly reinforce its habits and beliefs.  Think more of a force field that has unlimited energy to draw on.  Only a blast that is strong enough to overload the field in one moment is enough.  My guess is there are some aspects of our nature that can be changed over time and others that need a controlled shock treatment in order to be reset.
 

My daughter underwent ECT which pulled her out of a depression that had lasted for years and hadn’t been touched by medication or therapy.  While she was put out and paralyzed to limit the suffering, she still had to endure the shocks (around 10 in three weeks iirc before it started working).  I would not be the least surprised if mortality is God’s shock treatment where our intelligence and spirits are the equivalent of unconscious and paralyzed through the veil to minimize the suffering.  We have had eternities up till now for the gentle approaches.  What’s left that requires such harshness is the stuff that can’t change without a reboot.  Once the reboot occurs, the gentle approaches can again be used to purify and refine as they will be effective.

Btw, those who cared for her during the treatments, including the doctors who administered the shocks, were some of the most loving, supportive medical staff I have ever encountered.  Not at all like the ones portrayed in the dramas that treat even modern ECT as some barbaric tool of domination that wipes out one’s individuality.

https://mentalhealthathome.org/2021/03/16/ect-real-life/

Edited December 3, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

46 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

To me, challenges aren’t punishments or tests from a higher power—they’re simply the result of nature and circumstance. We are shaped by our environment and upbringing, (nature/nurture), not much agency - most is beyond our control. Instead of seeing struggles as divine condemnation, I view them as opportunities to grow and adapt, creating my own meaning and purpose without the weight of imagined judgment.  Personal responsibility, (have never seen the imagined God help anyone), change rather than endure, and not try to rationalize horrors as sent by god to "refine" (condemning all who hurt as being in need of a chisel).  It's a better mindset without God for me.

 /shrug   To each their own I guess. I personally find that world view inadequate to explain the observed phenomena I have personally experienced. Key word here being "personally". My experience isn't transferable to you. But, what I can say is that you've have probably imagined a God that is not very similar to the one I know. If you'd like to understand that God, we'd be happy to share. If you want us to understand the god that you have imagined as not being, and it doesn't, you can explain to us what you don't believe. Not sure it's that useful, though. I don't believe in lots of things.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Nofear

[Autonomous]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

You call it nature, I call it God. The key difference seems to be that you don't believe that you can communicate with nature and that nature doesn't care about you. If it is comforting that everything that is happening to you is meaningless, wouldn't there be a considerable degree of more comfort if there was eternal meaning behind our interactions with natural processes?

I can communicate with parts of nature, with my children, even with my pets.  It is not meaningless.  I did grow up in a religious household, and after going through... a few things... and seeing others go through a few things... the problem of evil has resolved itself for me as being more comfortable without god.

1 hour ago, JVW said:

The value proposition of turning to Jesus is that He can take away your pain. He can heal your soul, lift your burdens, relieve the weight that you carry in your heart, the weight that makes shoulders slouch. He is waiting to meet you in that secret place of your deepest pain. He has already traveled that path. All you have to do is kneel down, ask Him if He's there and if He is can He please heal you. He is, and He can. You don't need a Bible or a religion to have this experience. You just need to be willing to look like an idiot in private and talk to yourself out loud to what is probably nothing. There is peace that can be obtained that cannot be conveyed or shared with anyone else.

 

I have not had any pain taken away, nor has anyone I know.  The ability to learn, grow, and change is what gives me hope and what relieves pain for me.  (elevation emotion has not treated me well - those good feelings? brought me to trust those who harmed my children, I now associate "good feelings" with grooming and evil, so no "spiritual" feelings for me - just chemicals in the brain, not info from god to me, not truth, not a protection, not useful for guidance in my experience).  

 

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Growth entails discomfort. Pain does not always result in growth, but growth always results in some degree of pain and/or discomfort. The bigger the growth, the bigger the pain. There are, in many cases, lasting scars that permanently weaken. But it is hard to predict how pain will impact any given individual. And pain that weakens at one time may serve to strengthen at another. There are people raised from childhood in the lap of luxury who end up committing suicide at a young age, or grow up to become homeless drunks. And there are others whose alcoholic father beat them every night, or they were trafficked as children, and grow up and create something beautiful and graduate magna cum laude and cure cancer. It's a strange thing to consider.

 

I disagree that there is always pain with growth.  I have learned many things, and have enjoyed the process of study, observation, and learning.  It's now my career - I enjoy learning so much

 

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I tend to fall in the former part. I have tons of lasting scars from a lifetime of trauma. Even after learning about God I have been through incredibly traumatic experiences that wouldn't have happened if I didn't believe in God. In many cases, I feel like I'm very weak and less capable of living than I would be if I didn't have those scars. But as time goes on and I allow God to work on me, many of my scars have eventually become like the blemishes in marble. I have become more beautiful as a result of them and find some of them to be sweet treasures and sources of strength.

 

I post here to understand how to better help relatives cope with trauma, and through my experience have found those who have left god now have better lives, just my experience, I know there are some who need church community, but for others - a better mindset is getting a job (for women), protecting themselves (not relying on priesthood that has not and will not protect them), and learning they can be their own authority figure (not perpetual victim waiting for god and others to save them.)  I know it is not how everyone practices religion, but I have seen the down side of a few difficult things.  Especially for women who have gone through bad bad stuff (and their children going through bad bad stuff too as a result of their mother... generations in the church relying on "god" that has not worked - generation after generation after generation.... fun family history.)

 

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I'm reminded of this quote from A.W. Towzer

Throughout the scriptures God condemns rebellion, but treats weakness with love and grace. It is said many times that the only acceptable sacrifice to Him is a broken heart and a crushed spirit (see Psalm 34:18 as an example). Alone, the things that crush me leave me battered and bruised. But if I turn to God in that condition He gently and lovingly lifts me up and strengthens me with His power.

Strength is often needed - to protect children, to protect oneself.  It takes claiming your own authority, stop waiting for others (or imagined god) to save you.  The easy route out is to stay a victim, relying on others to save you... my experience, believe in god or not, but god helps those who help themselves.  (need to help yourself, you know what is best for you - not your bishop, not the old scriptures - just face what you see, and research reputable sources - detectives and legal help (not church help), actual medical help (not prayers), do what really needs to be done.

Best wishes to you and all who have experience trauma, may you find strength within yourself.

Birds do not worry that the branch breaks - they find their own winds when foundation is removed.  The strongest foundation you will find is within yourself.  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

To me, challenges aren’t punishments or tests from a higher power—they’re simply the result of nature and circumstance. We are shaped by our environment and upbringing, (nature/nurture), not much agency - most is beyond our control. Instead of seeing struggles as divine condemnation, I view them as opportunities to grow and adapt, creating my own meaning and purpose without the weight of imagined judgment.  Personal responsibility, (have never seen the imagined God help anyone), change rather than endure, and not try to rationalize horrors as sent by god to "refine" (condemning all who hurt as being in need of a chisel).  It's a better mindset without God for me.

I don’t disagree with much of the above except that God has provided the playground for us to experiment with another form of existence in as well as the protection of our eternal nature so the experimenting only benefits and does not harm our being.

I don’t see any reason to assume we have a nature that can benefit from our mortal existence without the existence of God.

Otoh, I have felt God’s presence when going through experiences that would otherwise leave me hopeless.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Calm

[Autonomous]

31 minutes ago, Nofear said:

 /shrug   To each their own I guess. I personally find that world view inadequate to explain the observed phenomena I have personally experienced. Key word here being "personally". My experience isn't transferable to you. But, what I can say is that you've have probably imagined a God that is not very similar to the one I know. If you'd like to understand that God, we'd be happy to share. If you want us to understand the god that you have imagined as not being, and it doesn't, you can explain to us what you don't believe. Not sure it's that useful, though. I don't believe in lots of things.

 

Yes, it all comes down to personal experience.  We want to help others, and only have our own experience to get through things.  No borrowed light, unique journeys to us all, may everyone find something that will work for them.

[Autonomous]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t disagree with much of the above except that God has provided the playground for us to experiment with another form of existence in as well as the protection of our eternal nature so the experimenting only benefits and does not harm our being.

I don’t see any reason to assume we have a nature that can benefit from our mortal existence without the existence of God.

Otoh, I have felt God’s presence when going through experiences that would otherwise leave me hopeless.

 

Our minds are fascinating, religious or not we all image different future possibilities - telling stories and imaging what if scenarios to refine our actions has led to humans surviving fairly well.  (Although imaging other religious/political/cultural groups as being... deserving of war does not bode well...)

Evolution - changing each generation to better adapt, quite a bit inherited from the previous mortal in our family, and even from our environment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer  - horizontal gene transfer, the ray of hope for those who come from less desirable families lol.  

Call it instinct, call it "god", call it dreams, our mind is strange, most experience hallucinations of various different things.  Our instincts have developed from real experience, so not to be completely discounted, I just don't attach any of that to "god" anymore.  

 

"You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you." - haha, experimenting on those feelings has not turned out well for me so... I'll be the scrooge.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Autonomous said:

all it instinct, call it "god", call it dreams, our mind is strange, most experience hallucinations of various different things.  Our instincts have developed from real experience, so not to be completely discounted, I just don't attach any of that to "god" anymore.  

The problem with instinct is when knowledge is given that instinct is highly unlikely to provide.  I knew my daughter had diabetes because I was told so by what I identify as the Spirit.  I heard a voice tell me and I quote “your daughter has diabetes”.  I was unaware of her symptoms because she didn’t tell me she was hungry or thirsty and just took care of herself and wore baggy clothes and wasn’t energetic to begin with.

That voice only happened to me in that way once in my life where in other cases I have instinctually known what people need many other times (I have been told when I have helped people that I know what they need before they need it, but I know how I have arrived at those conclusions).  I can easily follow my thought process in the latter case.  I do not know how my mind worked the way it did and why it would ‘talk’ to me as if someone else if somehow I had subconsciously worked out she had diabetes.  That moment is very inconsistent with how my mind works.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Taking on the consequences and the pains did not turn Christ sinful.  If they had done so, he wouldn’t have been able to do anything with them but suffer.

The way I phrased that sentence came out wrong, but I agree with the sentiment in it. Christ was sinless, pure, and willing. But at the moment in which He performed the atonement He was treated, by God, and by those around Him, as the worst of any sinner to have ever existed. He even says on the Cross, "Daddy, why have you forsaken me?" and that's commonly interpreted to mean that the Father left Him truly alone for a moment. Which is a worse treatment than God has given anyone else who has ever lived. In these ways Jesus was worse than Laban. He suffered worse consequences, worse betrayals, worse death, and God never stopped trying with Laban, He never left him alone. But He did with Christ.

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I appreciate you posting that as you are not the first I have heard say Laban was a type of Christ.  It doesn’t work for me as there was nothing sincere or willing or admirable in Laban’s sacrifice.  I suppose one could look on him as a scapegoat which animal doesn’t chose to be the sacrifice, but even there the symbol is supposed to be without blemish and undeserving of the sacrifice it has to make.  Everything Laban did and was led to his death.  He legally deserved it since he attempted to murder, etc. (see Ken’s link for the reasons to look on Nephi as justified in his execution of Laban).

I understand what you are saying here, and I agree with it.

I would like to clarify that I'm not referring to Laban before the moment in which he is found drunk on the street. And I'm not comparing him to Christ outside of the time when He was suffering in the garden.

A type of Christ is a representation of Him, not a perfect representation. A type is someone or something that points the mind to reflect on Jesus and my relationship with Him. Something I can study in order to deepen my understanding of the atonement. A stick with a brazen serpent on it is a type of Christ. But it's just a stick and didn't chose to be carved up and display a symbol of the one who tempted Eve in the garden.

I'll also add that Jesus has said "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." With that statement being regarded it is much easier for me to question and search how I can find Jesus in every character in the scriptures, not just the good ones.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, JVW said:

He was treated, by God, and by those around Him, as the worst of any sinner to have ever existed.

No, he wasn’t.  He was treated as someone capable of overcoming sin, not someone wallowing in it.  There would have been no purpose for God to treat the worst sinner that way.

Quote

Which is a worse treatment than God has given anyone else who has ever lived.

Exactly…it was not a treatment a sinner would receive.  God treated him that way (and I personally believe the only thing God did to Christ was stand apart from Christ in that moment) because Christ was sinless and could handle it.  He would not treat any sinner that way.  I believe that Christ took on our sins rather than were given them to carry by someone else.

Quote

He suffered worse consequences, worse betrayals, worse death, and God never stopped trying with Laban, He never left him alone. But He did with Christ.

Which is one reason why Laban as a type of Christ doesn’t work for me.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

With that statement being regarded it is much easier for me to question and search how I can find Jesus in every character in the scriptures, not just the good ones.

If you find it useful that is great.  I see scripture’s purpose is to draw us to God and whatever works for someone is fine in my view as long as it doesn’t create unintended roadblocks.  

I don’t see it as likely intended by the writer though.  I believe the writer intended to show Nephi was morally and legally right to kill Laban.

Nephi and Laban as an allusion to David and Goliath, thereby showing Nephi’s right to kingship instead of Laman is an allusion I think was intentional.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2001/nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

Edited December 4, 2024 by Calm

[Autonomous]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem with instinct is when knowledge is given that instinct is highly unlikely to provide.  I knew my daughter had diabetes because I was told so by what I identify as the Spirit.  I heard a voice tell me and I quote “your daughter has diabetes”.  I was unaware of her symptoms because she didn’t tell me she was hungry or thirsty and just took care of herself and wore baggy clothes and wasn’t energetic to begin with.

That voice only happened to me once where in other cases I have instinctually known what people need many other times (I have been told when I have helped people that I know what they need before they need it, but I know how I have arrived at those conclusions).  I can easily follow my thought process in the latter case.

Similar testimonials are born from psychics and astrology, ouiji boards- common and vague enough to seemingly work.  

 

My patriarchal blessing said I would have handicapped children - they are not handicapped.  I bore my testimony and everyone in congregation raised hands and just "knew" their (pedophile) bishopric was called of god...

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Autonomous said:

(pedophile) bishopric was called of god

The entire bishopric were convicted pedophiles?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Autonomous said:

Similar testimonials are born from psychics and astrology, ouiji boards- common and vague enough to seemingly work.  

“Your daughter has diabetes” doesn’t seem that vague to me.

[Autonomous]

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

The entire bishopric were convicted pedophiles?

One now in jail, the others also part of church's addiction recovery group.  

[manol]

16 hours ago, JVW said:

 at the moment in which He performed the atonement He was treated, by God, and by those around Him, as the worst of any sinner to have ever existed. He even says on the Cross, "Daddy, why have you forsaken me?" and that's commonly interpreted to mean that the Father left Him truly alone for a moment. Which is a worse treatment than God has given anyone else who has ever lived. In these ways Jesus was worse than Laban. He suffered worse consequences, worse betrayals, worse death, and God never stopped trying with Laban, He never left him alone. But He did with Christ.

I was never comfortable with the concept of enormous injustice being inflicted on Christ in order for me to evade the consequences of my own misdeeds.  Yes I understand the paradigm that makes this a necessity, with the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the centerpiece of that paradigm. 

But this whole paradigm is so unlike how Christ taught us to treat one another!  It portrays God, and/or the laws God is subject to, as the exact opposite of the manner of men and women Christ calls us to be!

I now think the "atoning sacrifice" paradigm is probably the best that could be done for a people whose understanding is some version of "an eye for an eye".  Jesus's eye in payment instead of mine.  "Justice" (which in this paradigm is actually vengeance disguised by a more palatable word) is satisfied; it doesn't care whose eye is taken, just so somebody's eye is taken.  But this paradigm does TWO very good things:  It gives hope to the otherwise hopeless; and shifts our focus to Christ, and MAYBE we will learn a higher paradigm from that shift in focus!

You see, Christ taught a much higher paradigm which is love (the First and Second Great commandments, and the New Commandment).  In love the thoughts of vengeance do not even exist.  In the higher paradigm one does not "forgive" seventy times seven because one never takes offense in the first place.

Christ's paradigm of love does however impose this requirement on us:  We are called upon to give up every thought that stands in the way of love, even if it has our religion's backing. 

In my opinion. 

Edited December 4, 2024 by manol

[JVW]

17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

This is where your analogy falls off the rails.  Laban’s sins were many and the consequences thereof were significant.  What Christ took upon himself in the Garden was, indeed, weightier than that experienced by Laban.  However, Laban’s consequences had their roots in evil, and he faced them not because he chose to (given the choice, he likely would have opted out of all the consequences of his sins) but because he failed in his attempt to escape them.

By contrast, Christ’s act in the Garden had its roots solely in love and sacrifice, not in sin.  Thus you can understand why others might believe that your idea that “Christ was way worse than Laban during the time in which He suffered in the garden” mischaracterizes what happened in the Garden.

The way I phrased that sentence was poor. But I do view Christ's suffering in Gethsemane as Him taking upon Himself all of the sins of the world and suffering the penalties and consequences of those sins that He bore. For the eternal moment in which He was bearing the sins of the world, Laban doesn't even compare. I don't know if I'm making sense, it's hard for me to explain my thoughts here.

Nobody chooses their consequences, but Laban's decisions were his choice. The difference between Jesus and Laban was not that one chose their consequences, the difference is that one submitted in their wrestle with God. When Christ began to see what consequences He would have to face He begged God "Please don't do this." But then told Him "I submit to whatever you decide and trust you." I don't believe that Christ fully knew what He was getting Himself into when He entered the garden as evidenced by His surprise at the intensity of the experience and desire not to go through with it.

When saying that one of the ways I interpret the Laban stories is Laban as a type of Christ, I'm not saying that He is someone I need to emulate. Instead I'm saying that I need to be like Nephi in how he treated Laban here, and viewing Laban as a type helps me reflect on the suffering that Christ went through. Laban was murdered in cold blood, helpless and drunk, with his own sword. Nephi wrestled with accepting the sacrifice that needed to be made and took some serious convincing in order to accept the sacrifice of one man in order to save a nation. I believe Nephi was honorable and somber in this situation, treating it with the gravity it deserved. I would like to feel that way more deeply towards Christ's sacrifice and in my reflections during the sacrament and this story aids me on that quest.

I don't want to be confused where someone thinks I'm talking about crucifying God again, like what perdition does. But I acknowledge that it's my fault that Christ was sacrificed, so in that way I am offering up Christ as a sacrifice on my behalf. God gave Him to me as a sacrifice, just as God gave Laban to Nephi as a sacrifice. Again, not sure if I'm making sense here or not.

The thing with the atonement is that I have a very, very shallow and poor understanding of it. I really appreciate that you and Calm are having this conversation with me about it because as I try and type up my thoughts it's helping me in my efforts to ponder and reflect on that ultimate, pure, and holy sacrifice.

17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

You’ll recall that the divinely directed “type” of the sacrifice of the Son involved an unspotted animal.

Yes, but there are numberless types of Christ in the scriptures, and they all can represent Him in different ways. As a matter of fact, everything that exists or has ever existed or ever will exist is designed to point one's soul to Christ. That is what a type of Christ does, it directs one's attention to Christ.

Quote

Moses 6:63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

 

17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

This idea also seems misplaced as it seems to posit that the only source of pain is sin.  Both the Father and the Son feel sorrow and pain, and because of their perfect love the depth of that sorrow and pain is deeper than can be felt by any sinner.  Thus an analogy comparing Divine sorrow with its roots in love to the sorrow and pain of the natural man misses the mark as it fails to recognize the differences between two.  Christ was treated in the Garden as a spotless sacrifice willingly atoning for all who will accept that atonement…so, again, you can understand why some might deem inappropriate saying that in making a loving, willing sacrifice Christ “was treated as if He was the ultimate, eternal, worst sinner to ever exist.”

As I was typing up a reply to this bit I actually found a (personal) new question. Did Christ's atonement apply to Himself? You are suggesting here that the atonement was for (or partly for) pain. If the atonement was only for sin then Christ didn't need to suffer for Himself, as He was sinless. But if it was also for pain, sickness, etc. Christ endured a lot of pain, so did He suffer for himself? I think you're right in your description of my views. I think I do believe that the atonement was for sin alone and that all pain, sickness, etc. ultimately traces it's roots back to sin or not obeying God's voice. What do you think?

Lastly I want to say thanks again for having this conversation with me. I'd also like to point out that I am not implying this is the only way to interpret the story of Laban. There are countless ways to interpret any given scripture as God's word is eternal and can be utilized by Him in deeply personal ways.

[JVW]

37 minutes ago, manol said:

I was never comfortable with the concept of enormous injustice being inflicted on Christ in order for me to evade the consequences of my own misdeeds.  Yes I understand the paradigm that makes this a necessity, with the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the centerpiece of that paradigm. 

But this whole paradigm is so unlike how Christ taught us to treat one another!  It portrays God, and/or the laws God is subject to, as the exact opposite of the manner of men and women Christ calls us to be!

I now think the "atoning sacrifice" paradigm is probably the best that could be done for a people whose understanding is some version of "an eye for an eye".  Jesus's eye in payment instead of mine.  "Justice" (which in this paradigm is actually vengeance disguised by a more palatable word) is satisfied; it doesn't care whose eye is taken, just so somebody's eye is taken.  But this paradigm does TWO very good things:  It gives hope to the otherwise hopeless; and shifts our focus to Christ, and MAYBE we will learn a higher paradigm from that shift in focus!

You see, Christ taught a much higher paradigm which is love (the First and Second Great commandments, and the New Commandment).  In love the thoughts of vengeance do not even exist.  In the higher paradigm one does not "forgive" seventy times seven because one never takes offense in the first place.

Christ's paradigm of love does however impose this requirement on us:  We are called upon to give up every thought that stands in the way of love, even if it has our religion's backing. 

In my opinion. 

What is the paradigm of the atonement you subscribe to? I recently learned there are like 7 of them, is there one you like the best?

The "eye for an eye" was the law, and Christ fulfilled the law, and now it is not "eye for an eye" anymore, because of Him. Am I missing something with that statement?

God is love, and Zion is the goal. I agree with you, and I'm glad that Christ taught this elevated law.

I believe that law is a necessary component of love. To be loving to my children I need to set boundaries and dole out tailored consequences to them when they cross those boundaries. I believe that is the most loving thing I can do as a parent. In another thread people have been talking about intelligences > spirits and reincarnation and stuff and that quote from Joseph Smith came up about God found the spirits and gave them laws so they could advance to become like Him. We commonly talk about in the church how important agency is, and how Satan sought to destroy the agency of man which is why he was cast out of heaven. Agency can't exist without law. I think to ignore the fact that God has a law is a very dangerous thing to do. And to be afraid of God is a very healthy way to be. I'd much rather be afraid of God than of man, I find a lot of strength in that fear.

Thoughts?

[JVW]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

No, he wasn’t.  He was treated as someone capable of overcoming sin, not someone wallowing in it.  There would have been no purpose for God to treat the worst sinner that way.

He was capable of overcoming sin, but I believe He was full of the sins of the world that He drank from the bitter cup and suffered the exact degree according to the law for those sins. I guess I am a subscriber to that ransom atonement theory or whatever it's called.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Exactly…it was not a treatment a sinner would receive.  God treated him that way (and I personally believe the only thing God did to Christ was stand apart from Christ in that moment) because Christ was sinless and could handle it.  He would not treat any sinner that way.  I believe that Christ took on our sins rather than were given them to carry by someone else.

Which is one reason why Laban as a type of Christ doesn’t work for me.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

If you find it useful that is great.  I see scripture’s purpose is to draw us to God and whatever works for someone is fine in my view as long as it doesn’t create unintended roadblocks. 

Agreed. My goal is only to understand the atoning sacrifice of Jesus better.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see it as likely intended by the writer though.  I believe the writer intended to show Nephi was morally and legally right to kill Laban.

I don't know what was intended by the writer. I am not suggesting that this one way of seeing it is the best way, or the only way, to extract some symbolism from this story. Your link about the parallels between the story of Laban and the story of Goliath is a really nice thing to chew on as well. There's also really standard interpretations that people present about the story that are fun to consider as well.

I believe that Nephi was morally right in killing Laban, because God told Him to do it. I don't believe that He was legally right to kill him, unless the Jewish court system at that time allowed for cold-blooded murder of a drunk passed out in the street that wronged you in the past.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Nephi and Laban as an allusion to David and Goliath, thereby showing Nephi’s right to kingship instead of Laman is an allusion I think was intentional.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2001/nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, manol said:

I was never comfortable with the concept of enormous injustice being inflicted on Christ in order for me to evade the consequences of my own misdeeds.  Yes I understand the paradigm that makes this a necessity, with the atoning sacrifice of Christ as the centerpiece of that paradigm. 

But this whole paradigm is so unlike how Christ taught us to treat one another!  It portrays God, and/or the laws God is subject to, as the exact opposite of the manner of men and women Christ calls us to be!

I now think the "atoning sacrifice" paradigm is probably the best that could be done for a people whose understanding is some version of "an eye for an eye".  Jesus's eye in payment instead of mine.  "Justice" (which in this paradigm is actually vengeance disguised by a more palatable word) is satisfied; it doesn't care whose eye is taken, just so somebody's eye is taken.  But this paradigm does TWO very good things:  It gives hope to the otherwise hopeless; and shifts our focus to Christ, and MAYBE we will learn a higher paradigm from that shift in focus!

You see, Christ taught a much higher paradigm which is love (the First and Second Great commandments, and the New Commandment).  In love the thoughts of vengeance do not even exist.  In the higher paradigm one does not "forgive" seventy times seven because one never takes offense in the first place.

Christ's paradigm of love does however impose this requirement on us:  We are called upon to give up every thought that stands in the way of love, even if it has our religion's backing. 

In my opinion. 

What may on the surface seem to be any injustice in the atonement of Christ isn’t. In order for Christ to know all things, in an infinite and eternally comprehensive manner, it was absolutely essential that he learn to comprehend all things experientially, through his emotions, not just theoretically through the intellect alone. In order for the Christ to be fully God, it wasn’t enough for him to intellectually grasp abstract concepts of eternal truth. No, the full breadth and depth of knowing all things can only be obtained by experiencing all the emotions God’s created creatures can feel as they experience both the pleasurable and miserable aspects of existence. An infinite and eternal fullness of emotional intelligence is required in order for the Christ to possess the requisite empathy, compassion and perfect divine love  to have the power to save and exalt his creations after fully satisfying the law of justice.

All the above also holds true when it comes to the expediency of Christ needing to experience the full spectrum of all the physical discomforts, pains and agonies that can befall those who are in possession of physical bodies. Therefore, the atoning sacrifice had to be a totally immersive infinite and eternal schoolmaster that would enable Christ to fully comprehend the full breadth of human suffering in all its aspects, and thereby be able to comprehend all things intellectually, emotionally, physically and spiritually. The Prophet Alma testified of these immutable truths in the following enlightening verses from the Book of Alma…

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, that he may know ACCORDING TO THE FLESH how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth ACCORDING TO THE FLESH that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me. (Alma 7)

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by teddyaware

[manol]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

What is the paradigm of the atonement you subscribe to? I recently learned there are like 7 of them, is there one you like the best?

Is this what you're referring to?

https://faithrethink.com/7-atonement-theories-from-church-history/

If not, can you provide a link or a summary?

 

28 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

What may on the surface seem to be any injustice in the atonement of Christ isn’t. In order for Christ to know all things, in an infinite and eternally comprehensive manner, it was absolutely essential that he learn to comprehend all things experientially, through his emotions, not just theoretically through the intellect alone. In order for the Christ to be fully God, it wasn’t enough for him to intellectually grasp abstract concepts of eternal truth. No, the full breadth and depth of knowing all things can only be obtained by experiencing all the emotions God’s created creatures can feel as they experience both the pleasurable and miserable aspects of existence. An infinite and eternal fullness of emotional intelligence is required in order for the Christ to possess the requisite empathy, compassion and perfect divine love  to have the power to save and exalt his creations after fully satisfying the law of justice.

All the above also holds true when it comes to the expediency of Christ needing to experience the full spectrum of all the physical discomforts, pains and agonies that can befall those who are in possession of physical bodies. Therefore, the atoning sacrifice had to be a totally immersive infinite and eternal schoolmaster that would enable Christ to fully comprehend the full breadth of human suffering in all its aspects, and thereby be able to comprehend all things intellectually, emotionally, physically and spiritually. The Prophet Alma testified of these immutable truths in the following enlightening verses from the Book of Alma…

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, that he may know ACCORDING TO THE FLESH how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth ACCORDING TO THE FLESH that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me. (Alma 7)

 

Teddy, I agree with you!  I will respond in more detail later, once I've read about the 7 atonement theories @JVW is referring to.

[JVW]

25 minutes ago, manol said:

Is this what you're referring to?

https://faithrethink.com/7-atonement-theories-from-church-history/

If not, can you provide a link or a summary?

 

Teddy, I agree with you!  I will respond in more detail later, once I've read about the 7 atonement theories @JVW is referring to.

Yeah that link looks like the one I saw on this forum a couple of days ago.

[JVW]

59 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

What may on the surface seem to be any injustice in the atonement of Christ isn’t. In order for Christ to know all things, in an infinite and eternally comprehensive manner, it was absolutely essential that he learn to comprehend all things experientially, through his emotions, not just theoretically through the intellect alone. In order for the Christ to be fully God, it wasn’t enough for him to intellectually grasp abstract concepts of eternal truth. No, the full breadth and depth of knowing all things can only be obtained by experiencing all the emotions God’s created creatures can feel as they experience both the pleasurable and miserable aspects of existence. An infinite and eternal fullness of emotional intelligence is required in order for the Christ to possess the requisite empathy, compassion and perfect divine love  to have the power to save and exalt his creations after fully satisfying the law of justice.

All the above also holds true when it comes to the expediency of Christ needing to experience the full spectrum of all the physical discomforts, pains and agonies that can befall those who are in possession of physical bodies. Therefore, the atoning sacrifice had to be a totally immersive infinite and eternal schoolmaster that would enable Christ to fully comprehend the full breadth of human suffering in all its aspects, and thereby be able to comprehend all things intellectually, emotionally, physically and spiritually. The Prophet Alma testified of these immutable truths in the following enlightening verses from the Book of Alma…

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, that he may know ACCORDING TO THE FLESH how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth ACCORDING TO THE FLESH that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me. (Alma 7)

 

Are you suggesting that Christ was not perfectly empathetic and loving before He suffered the atonement? Everything I see in His ministry and everything recorded about Him indicates a pure and full love and compassion. Is that not the case?

Reading this it sounds like the atonement had two purposes...

1) Pay the penalty for the sins of the world so people won't suffer if they repent. (selfless)

2) Pass through this as a rite of passage into Godhood. (self-centered)

Is that a correct way to layout what you're describing?