How to Throw a Wrench into High Priest Group

[_consiglieri]

Yesterday, the HP instructor was regurgitating some talk that had "R's" in it.

The first "R" was "Right to Choose."

The second "R" was "Responsibility," after which he clarified that we are all responsible for our own choices.

At this, I raised my hand and asked, "Wouldn't it be fair to say that the whole plan of salvation, including Jesus' sacrifice, is to a large extent about avoiding responsibility for our choices?"

(We never quite got back on track with the lesson after that.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_harmony]

The second "R" was "Responsibility," after which he clarified that we are all responsible for our own choices.

At this, I raised my hand and asked, "Wouldn't it be fair to say that the whole plan of salvation, including Jesus' sacrifice, is to a large extent about avoiding responsibility for our choices?"

(We never quite got back on track with the lesson after that.)

A riot instigator in HP Group!

[_bcspace]

Easy question, easy answer. No.

[_consiglieri]

You see, BC, that's what is so funny.

A bunch of the HP's took umbrage at my suggestion, even going so far as to seemingly find it offensive.

It seems obvious to me that unless the whole point of the atonement is to allow us to avoid the consequences of our actions, then "Christ has died in vain," (a quote I threw in there during the ensuing discussion).

How is it possible that a self-proclaimed Christian church cannot see so elementary a fact?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

You see, BC, that's what is so funny.

A bunch of the HP's took umbrage at my suggestion, even going so far as to seemingly find it offensive.

How does my answer apply to this? I am not offended by your question.

It seems obvious to me that unless the whole point of the atonement is to allow us to avoid the consequences of our actions, then "Christ has died in vain," (a quote I threw in there during the ensuing discussion).

How is it possible that a self-proclaimed Christian church cannot see so elementary a fact

Because we don't divide by zero. We don't worry about what we can't do. Without Jesus' Atonement, there is nothing we can do so avoiding consequences isn't even an issue. With Jesus' Atonement, there is something we can do. We're not avoiding responsibility since, because of agency, we reap what we sow.

That's similar to how I would have answered you in HPG. I would not have been offended. If you came back with a rebuttal, I would have seen it as a fun challenge and perhaps I might have ended up agreeing with you or I would have continued the discussion. I think that's how most LDS would have handled it.

[_Tobin]

Actually, without the atonement, none of us could enter the presence of God again. It has nothing to do with personal responsibility at all and has only with the demands of justice. You still have to choose God and do as God asks to be redeemed and come again into the presence of God. That is a set of active choices and not something that is freely made for us.

[Guest]

It seems obvious to me that unless the whole point of the atonement is to allow us to avoid the consequences of our actions, then "Christ has died in vain," (a quote I threw in there during the ensuing discussion).

How is it possible that a self-proclaimed Christian church cannot see so elementary a fact?

This is not the whole point of the Atonement. Once you acquire at least a rudimentary, working grasp of LDS doctrine here, and the philosophical depth to analyze its elements in a serious manner, perhaps we can have a productive discussion.

Suffice it to say that the fundamental purpose of the Atonement is not to "allow us to avoid the consequences of our actions," but to redeem us and cleanse us from our sins, through the grace of Christ, such that we may return to the presence of our Father in Heaven. Acceptance of the Atonement is an action, for which their are consequences. Non-acceptance of the Atonement, and a life lived in wickedness, also has consequences. In both cases, there is no avoidance of the consequences. The Atonement, it is true, in an ultimate sense, waives the requirements and claim of justice upon us at the judgement seat of Christ, but that final state of purity through the Atonement does not obviate the consequences of our conduct in mortality. We are still subject to the consequences of our behavior here, and the dynamics and side-effects our choices set in motion, even after having accepted the Atonement and its blessings.

The Atonement then, when freely chosen, is not so much an avoidance of consequences, in an eternal sense, as the choosing of an alternative set of consequences. Indeed, one might say that the Atonement doesn't so much allow us avoidance of the consequences of our sins as it places us in a state in which there are no longer any consequences to avoid. This is part of what is meant when the scriptures say that, although our sins may be red as scarlet, through the Atonement, we become white as wool. It is a total and ultimate purging and purification. Our past sins are no longer imputed to us - they have been utterly erased, not "avoided" per se (as though those consequences still exist somewhere and we swerved to avoid them once having been forgiven and sanctified through the power of the Atonement). The consequences no longer exist at all. The debt incurred with respect to eternal law and justice was paid by Jesus Christ for all those who accept that atoning sacrifice. That is a consequence of our actions, as well as any we would incur upon dying in our sins having not exercised faith in Christ, obeyed his commandments, and accepted the Atonement.

Christ died that we may become exalted beings like he himself is and "inherit all things." The fundamental crux of this isn't avoidance of the consequences of sin but purification from sin.

In a gospel sense, just having avoided the Second Death itself would, while a relief, be hardly even a baby step toward that which is contemplated by the concept "exaltation."

[_Droopy]

And yes, it was offensive. No wonder you priesthood brethren reacted as they did.

[_bcspace]

Consig, if your question had been about plural marriage, you could have removed an 'r' from your subject line.

[_Tobin]

And yes, it was offensive. No wonder you priesthood brethren reacted as they did.

It's not offensive. The question is just ignorant of the atonement and the plan of salvation and is more appropriate in Primary or a Gospel Essentials class for new members.