Droopy wrote: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.
Given who it came from, and what I know of Consig and his general demeanor and beliefs, after a number of years of observing and tangling with him, it was probably taken as offensive. I snipped an entire paragraph from my original response that dealt with that, because I didn't want to start a kerfuffle, but I have little doubt that Consig was "dropping a bomb" in order that he, the smartest person in the room, would now be the center of attention and controversy.
Most mature adults would not do something like that, especially in a HP lesson.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
consiglieri wrote: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).
--Consiglieri
Consiglieri, what about the Church's heavy emphasis on earning heavenly brownie points? If everyone gets an even break, what makes us so special? Seems like this would would lead to a lower completion of home teaching assignments.
I think consig's question is a fair one, and neither bcspace nor droopy have adequately addressed it. Droopy, you object saying that the atonement's purpose is not to avoid consequences, but to redeem and cleanse from sin. Well, how is that not an avoidance of consequences? Justice would presumably require us to be punished for sins X, Y, and Z, but due to accepting Christ's atonement, that punishment is avoided. Punishment is a consequence of sin. The punishment is not annulled or removed (Christ suffered it, after all), it is simply avoided (or perhaps more accurately--evaded) by the repentant sinner. Thus, consequence avoided. Droopy, you put a different spin on it and using different words, but essentially that is what's happening.
Consig's question goes to the heart of the central fallacy of Christianity: why is Jesus needed at all? Assuming the eternal existence of the soul, why couldn't each sinner suffer for his/her own sins until justice be satisfied? If the heavenly laws of justice require some form of punishment for earthly misdeeds, then why can't that punishment be exacted individually for each person? If the white lie I told my mom when I was young requires a sentence of 20 minutes in the fiery depths of hell, then why can't I just pay for it myself? Our own justice systems have sentencing guidelines designed to be commensurate with the gravity of the crime; why can't God have one, too? Surely God, who is omniscient and knows perfectly the exact culpability of each person in any given sin, is in a great position to quantify the amount of punishment required for the misdeeds of any sinner. Any conception of God, or the afterlife, that contemplates an infinite punishment (in any degree whatsoever) for wrongs committed during a finite, mortal existence, cannot be based on justice.
consiglieri wrote: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
Your question was a little off since we still have responsibility for our choices. No one has taken that responsibility away from us and no action can take that responsibility away from us.
Also, I am not sure if your question is a question since you made a question with your own answer in it. Much better to ask: Did Jesus' atonement take responsibility for our choices away from us?
That would be a question.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Droopy wrote: 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.
At least we know the ground rules now.
Droopy wrote: 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.
Classic doublespeak, as has been previously noted.
You do George Orwell proud.
Droopy wrote: 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.
Actually, this is where repentance comes in.
Droopy wrote: 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).
See previous entry under "doublespeak."
How is it that in using a superabundance of words you still manage to entirely miss the mark?
Practice, I suppose.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
moksha wrote: Consiglieri, what about the Church's heavy emphasis on earning heavenly brownie points? If everyone gets an even break, what makes us so special? Seems like this would would lead to a lower completion of home teaching assignments.
Thank you for getting the point precisely, Moksha!
It is remarkable to me that the Church that claims to be Christ's one and only has effectively relegated the Atonement to a footnote in their theology.
And it begins to become clearer how people can legitimately question the authenticity of Mormon Christianity.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Spektical wrote:I think consig's question is a fair one, and neither bcspace nor droopy have adequately addressed it. Droopy, you object saying that the atonement's purpose is not to avoid consequences, but to redeem and cleanse from sin. Well, how is that not an avoidance of consequences? Justice would presumably require us to be punished for sins X, Y, and Z, but due to accepting Christ's atonement, that punishment is avoided. Punishment is a consequence of sin. The punishment is not annulled or removed (Christ suffered it, after all), it is simply avoided (or perhaps more accurately--evaded) by the repentant sinner. Thus, consequence avoided. Droopy, you put a different spin on it and using different words, but essentially that is what's happening.
Consig's question goes to the heart of the central fallacy of Christianity: why is Jesus needed at all? Assuming the eternal existence of the soul, why couldn't each sinner suffer for his/her own sins until justice be satisfied? If the heavenly laws of justice require some form of punishment for earthly misdeeds, then why can't that punishment be exacted individually for each person? If the white lie I told my mom when I was young requires a sentence of 20 minutes in the fiery depths of hell, then why can't I just pay for it myself? Our own justice systems have sentencing guidelines designed to be commensurate with the gravity of the crime; why can't God have one, too? Surely God, who is omniscient and knows perfectly the exact culpability of each person in any given sin, is in a great position to quantify the amount of punishment required for the misdeeds of any sinner. Any conception of God, or the afterlife, that contemplates an infinite punishment (in any degree whatsoever) for wrongs committ
ed during a finite, mortal existence, cannot be based on justice.
+1,000
And I think this goes to the heart of why, in the final analysis, Mormon theology ultimately teaches a universality of salvation and exaltation.
Well put!
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
And I think this goes to the heart of why, in the final analysis, Mormon theology ultimately teaches a universality of salvation and exaltation.
Well put!
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
So that means we can have our cake and eat it too!!!
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
