DiscussMormonism.com

Alma 42

This chapter ponders the question of why the atonement was necessary. I mean surely God has the authority and power to "forgive mankind", correct? Or is God subject to the Law? Is the Law what was created by God or what created God?

Certainly we can all agree that God can not lie...this is an impossible for position for God and is utterly and completely contrary to His very nature and character.
So, when reading Alma 42 we are confronted with the Law of Justice and the Law of Mercy. Their resolution is relatively simple and explains why exactly Christ had to perform the act He performed. The atonement was not a requirement of God but of the Law, a requirement God was unable to transcend as it is that very Law which defines Him. This is, for example, why we view the 10 commandments as eternal and why they can not be "repealed". The requirement for an atonement could not be averted, could not be mitigated, could not be denied nor ignored...simply put - it had to be fulfilled. God was bound by the Law for the atonement for there was no other option for Him. Some of you may claim that He simply fell upon His own sword; which would be an interesting argument if one can present it as such - but i contend that God was, by His nature and character, unable to act in any other way and that His love was manifest by the sacrifice which serves us all.

based on this reasoning, the notion i propose is this:
The Law can not be circumvented, even by God.


I bring this topic up, because i consider it as illuminating towards the flaws inherent in Sola Gratia.

The Law can not be circumvented, even by God.

I agree.

subgenius wrote:Certainly we can all agree that God can not lie...this is an impossible for position for God and is utterly and completely contrary to His very nature and character.

The problem with this is that you do not know what God has said about anything. You only think you know because other people, some of whom are anonymous, have told you what they claim God said to them. (Actually, in some cases you consider as God's word, it is someone interpreting and rewriting what someone else has said that God had said to them).

The fact that what they say is not consistent then either God IS capable of lying, or the people whom you trust to let you know what God has said (scriptural authors) are lying.

Suppose a human father, who claims to love his children dearly, decided that he could not, in good conscience, forgive any of his children for any wrongs or disobedience they might have committed, even if they sincerly repented, unless the one child who never disobeyed him volunteered to be cruelly tortured to death to atone for the sins of the other siblings. Wouldn't that father be judged criminally insane? Why is it even slightly less insane for God to operate in that way? I don't see any good reason why God could not punish each of us for our own sins, and then free us after serving out our punishment (commensurate with the severity of the sins, of course)--provided that we had genuinely repented.

In the case of the trinitarian God believed in by Evangicals and other Christians we have the situation where God offerred himself to himself to save us all from punishment that he himself intended to deal out to us. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense? I certainly don't think so!

I see no other purpose for the doctrine of the atonement other than as a device to intimidate people into joining and supporting, financially and otherwise, the religious organization preaching that doctrine by convincing them that they are doomed to eternal damnation and/or excruciating punishment if they try to work out or establish a rapport with God, on their own, without the help of the Church.

I can see good reasons for voluntarily joining a church or other charitable organization and contributing to worthwile activities that offer help, comfort and love to others in need, and participating in fellowship and community activities that benefit all, but I don't see the justice in condemning anyone for not joining the "right" church or organization, or for choosing to independently do good works on one's own initiative.

Gunnar wrote:Suppose a human father, who claims to love his children dearly, decided that he could not, in good conscience, forgive any of his children for any wrongs or disobedience they might have committed, even if they sincerly repented, unless the one child who never disobeyed him volunteered to be cruelly tortured to death to atone for the sins of the other siblings. Wouldn't that father be judged criminally insane? Why is it even slightly less insane for God to operate in that way? I don't see any good reason why God could not punish each of us for our own sins, and then free us after serving out our punishment (commensurate with the severity of the sins, of course)--provided that we had genuinely repented.

In the case of the trinatarian God believed in by Evangicals and other Christians we have the situation where God offerred himself to himself to save us all from punishment that he himself intended to deal out to us. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense? I certainly don't think so!

I see no other purpose for the doctrine of the atonement other than as a device to intimidate people into joining and supporting, financially and otherwise, the religious organization preaching that doctrine by convincing them that they are doomed to eternal damnation and/or excruciating punishment if they try to work out or establish a rapport with God, on their own, without the help of the Church.

In Mormonism, although Jesus is purported to have suffered for our sins, sadistic Mormon God is still going to go after His pound of flesh from His disobedient offspring.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

So Mormon Jesus may be sat there disgruntled, quite rightly, about as to the actual reason for His suffering was...

Drifting wrote:

subgenius wrote:Certainly we can all agree that God can not lie...this is an impossible for position for God and is utterly and completely contrary to His very nature and character.

The problem with this is that you do not know what God has said about anything. You only think you know because other people, some of whom are anonymous, have told you what they claim God said to them. (Actually, in some cases you consider as God's word, it is someone interpreting and rewriting what someone else has said that God had said to them).

The fact that what they say is not consistent then either God IS capable of lying, or the people whom you trust to let you know what God has said (scriptural authors) are lying.

again, i do not think you understand the nature of God. What you say here is approaching a accuracy with regards to the fundamentals of faith...but....it does not to speak to spiritual knowledge, and this knowledge is gained by experience, and that experience is gained when God manifests upon you.

subgenius wrote:when God manifests upon you.

And how, specifically, do you believe God manifests Himself upon you?

Gunnar wrote:Suppose a human father, who claims to love his children dearly, decided that he could not, in good conscience, forgive any of his children for any wrongs or disobedience they might have committed, even if they sincerly repented, unless the one child who never disobeyed him volunteered to be cruelly tortured to death to atone for the sins of the other siblings. Wouldn't that father be judged criminally insane? Why is it even slightly less insane for God to operate in that way? I don't see any good reason why God could not punish each of us for our own sins, and then free us after serving out our punishment (commensurate with the severity of the sins, of course)--provided that we had genuinely repented.

Because God is subject to the Law. As i stated above, the Law of Justice and the Law of Mercy are discussed in Alma 42 to the point you bring up here.

Gunnar wrote:In the case of the trinitarian God believed in by Evangicals and other Christians we have the situation where God offerred himself to himself to save us all from punishment that he himself intended to deal out to us. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense? I certainly don't think so!

agreed

Gunnar wrote:I see no other purpose for the doctrine of the atonement other than as a device to intimidate people into joining and supporting, financially and otherwise, the religious organization preaching that doctrine by convincing them that they are doomed to eternal damnation and/or excruciating punishment if they try to work out or establish a rapport with God, on their own, without the help of the Church.

perhaps that is because you are trying the meat before you have weaned from the milk

Gunnar wrote:I can see good reasons for voluntarily joining a church or other charitable organization and contributing to worthwile activities that offer help, comfort and love to others in need, and participating in fellowship and community activities that benefit all, but I don't see the justice in condemning anyone for not joining the "right" church or organization, or for choosing to independently do good works on one's own initiative.

I do not have the power to condemn others. Your judgment may be confused on the topic.
Is it your position that God has no requirement for anyone to "join" a church?

Drifting wrote:

subgenius wrote:when God manifests upon you.

And how, specifically, do you believe God manifests Himself upon you?

i don't believe that He did, i know it.
I know it the same way you know love, as you have given it and received it.