LDS Atonement

[ἀλήθεια]

Alethia,

The name is Aletheia. Why that is anymore difficult than Orontes, I do not know.

Does a person need to realize he is sinful, feel godly sorrow and have faith in Christ's blood to receive forgiveness and be saved?

He needs to be the recipient of God's grace. At the moment of regeneration, I am sure he becomes aware of many things and especially his own sinfulness.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) (Ephesians 2:5)

When we were dead in sins, we didn't want to come to the light.

 

[Watchmen]

[/font]

The name is Aletheia. Why that is anymore difficult than Orontes, I do not know.

Wow! You ARE a piece of work! He missed your name by one letter! Also, his name is clearly visible on ALL of his posts. Yours is not because you choose to use a foreign alphabet.

 

[edward]

Athenia? I believe my post deserves a response. After all, in debating the LDS Atonement, it is necessary to know your position in relation to it.

Why?

Edward

 

[edward]

Wow! You ARE a piece of work! He missed your name by one letter! Also, his name is clearly visible on ALL of his posts. Yours is not because you choose to use a foreign alphabet.

What has this to do with the OP? Please notice at the bottom of each of her posts. It became obvious that you took issue with her Greek name so she added this at the bottom of her messages many weeks ago. She has this for a signature "Aletheia (ἀλήθει&#945." I really do not understand why you cannot stick to the topic(s) rather than going off on these rants that have nothing to do with anything except to show your insecurities in this forum. It is really time to grow up and deal with the issues at hand.

My advice to ἀλήθεια is :troll:


Edward

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not sure that I understand what you are trying to say here. It sounds like we are in complete agreement, but if we are why would you bring it up?

I brought it up because I wasn't really sure that we were in agreement. I'm glad to see that we are.

I respectfully disagree. Every perfect gift is from God, (James 1:17) but not the evil that comes into our lives, e.g. the pedophile who destroyed a child's innocence.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. When I said everything we have is a gift from God, I was thinking in terms of our blessings.

Why would anyone not use any gift that they have received from God? The mere thought of that is absurd.

It may very well be absurd, but people have many gifts from God that they do not use. Consider the parable of the talents. God gives us talents. Some people use their talents and others don't.

Considering the topic of this thread, I'll just say that I disagree, but thanks for responding, respectfully.

No problem. It might be an interesting topic to discuss, don't you think?

 

[Watchmen]

Aletheia, I'll take your lack of response as an admission that you are a Calvinist-like Christian.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Aletheia, I'll take your lack of response as an admission that you are a Calvinist-like Christian.

You can think whatever you want. I only read your posts when I'm not logged in because you are on my ignore list. If I miss some of your posts, so be it. This thread isn't about Protestants. It's about the LDS atonement and to my knowledge you haven't contributed much.

 

[Watchmen]

You can think whatever you want. I only read your posts when I'm not logged in because you are on my ignore list. If I miss some of your posts, so be it. This thread isn't about Protestants. It's about the LDS atonement and to my knowledge you haven't contributed much.

You're predictable and consistant. I already explained how it relates to the OP.

 

[Orontes]

Some sins are larger than others? The only unforgivable sin is blashpemey against the Holy Ghost. Which sins are considered larger than others to LDS? Does the candidate for baptism only have to repent of some sins? Which sins must he forsake ----only the larger ones? Must he give up his extra-marital affair, but go on drinking his gin and vodka? Must he stop gambling?

Yes, some sins are larger, bigger, have greater weight or severity. Killing a person is more onerous than stealing an apple.

The worst offense is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Next would be murder. Next would be adultery. Typically sins carry greater weight as they negatively impact others.

A would-be convert would have to give up all mentioned.

Does this mean that the person forsaking his sins will no longer sin?

There is never a guarantee. A person, insofar as they are a moral agent, has the ability to choose the light or the dark. The meaning of forsake is to give up or abandon. Should there be some kind of moral recidivism then they didn't really forsake the sin they again commit.

Shoot! I can barely understand your posts! Did you think you were talking to someone with a PhD? I'm flattered. But for all your vocabulary, you aren't very good at discerning the intent of other people. I guess that priesthood power doesn't really work.

I told you that I started this thread at the request of Watchmen. It wasn't my original idea. But since I started it I thought I'd find out on which points I had an accurate understanding of LDS atonement and on which points I do not. If you want debate, let's debate whether or not I understand the topic of the thread or I suggest that you start your own thread on non-LDS atonement.

I don't see anything difficult in my post. If there is something you do not understand ask and I can reword or explain.

If you don't believe your intent is hostile, then there are the statements like the above that need to be dealt with. There are also comments like this below that you were asked to defend or retract which have not been retracted :

"Followers of Mormonism nearly always try to distract from one's coming to Christ towards one's being a member of a certain church(denomination) with a prescribed set of interpretations of biblical Christianity claiming that their interpretation/misinterpretation is the only way. People ought to have their eyes on Jesus Christ, not on the Mormon church and it's leaders." http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1540600-post76.html​

If your intent were simply to get an understanding of the LDS sense of the atonement the thread would be much shorter. I have had two distinct posts on the subject you never followed up on.

BTW, I asked why you quoted my question and then didn't answer it. I don't expect you to quote or answer questions to other posters.

If you don't expect me to answer questions to other posters, then there is no need for you to ask why I didn't answer a question that was to another poster (that was simply in a larger quote of yours I posted). This is what you asked:

"Instead of answering my question, "do Mormons only baptize sinless people?" you asked me a question. Why didn't you answer my question?"​

 

[Orontes]

Will the man be forgiven if the person that he stole from died? Has he forsaken that sin or not? What if he took away his wife's virginity before they were married? How does he give it back to her? How does he get forgiveness? What if he lied to his mother? How does he undo the lie if she grounded his brother for a week as a result of his lie? This all sounds very complicated.

If sin is tied to any sense of justice (as in a breech of the moral order), then the correction can be complicated and difficult: not only in the attempt to restore, but in the damage sin does to the soul. Recall, sin is a willed act: a knowing choice of the wrong. Sin can be forgiven, even grievous sins (save one), but actions have consequences and this cannot be brushed over or simply dismissed. Things that cannot be restored, either through the nature of the change (like the unlawful loss of sexual innocence) or due to the loss of time etc. each create their own burden and must be dealt with accordingly. Retribution speaks to the very core of any system of justice. This is why in the larger Christian Tradition penance came to play such a lead role. Within Mormondom, while recognizing (using your one example of premarital sex) one can never say be a virgin again, yet in and through the relationship with Christ, there is a way to placate the guilt and pain tied to such. It is this very process of knowing the bitter and the sweet that allows for wisdom and is one of the key rationales for the mortal experience.

 

[Orontes]

Let me make sure I'm clear here: your view is the grounds (the base reason) for saving a thing is to demonstrate the saving agent is merciful? Why?
If I've understood you correctly, why shouldn't that idea be dubbed narcissistic?

You can dub it anything you like. I don't have to answer to God for your actions. To debate the validity of the Bible though, you need to start another thread. I believe that God shows mercy on whom he will. But what I believe doesn't tell me or anyone else if my understanding of the LDS atonement is correct.

I'm not debating the validity of the Bible.* I'm asking questions about your sense of what the grounds are for God rescuing us? If you claim Deity saves simply to show His mercy, then that God appears a narcissist. If that is wrong, then you would need to explain why it isn't narcissistic to do a thing so that thing reflects back on how grand the agent is.

*Note: the vast swath of Christian sects appeal to the Bible, but do not necessarily hold that God rescues man so to show His mercy. Simply citing the Bible alone will not due. If you wish to appeal to say Romans 9:13-24, you must at least give argument why the long tradition that understands this as referring to the House of Israel and is not reducible to the individual is wrong.

 

[Orontes]

[/font]

The name is Aletheia. Why that is anymore difficult than Orontes, I do not know.

Like your italicization of larger in " Some sins are larger than others?" and the snide comment: " I guess that priesthood power doesn't really work": the above is petty. Given this growing pattern, I will point out it's not only petty but wrong. You put forward your name as ἀλήθεια. This is written in Greek. I am familiar with Greek. Alethia, alethea, aletheia are all common romanizations. Try to focus on more substantive issues and refrain from the snipes.

He needs to be the recipient of God's grace. At the moment of regeneration, I am sure he becomes aware of many things and especially his own sinfulness...When we were dead in sins, we didn't want to come to the light.

Is the answer here then a person doesn't need to realize he is sinful, feel godly sorrow and have faith in Christ's blood to receive forgiveness and be saved?

 

[Clear]

Aletheia :
I saw your comment regarding the misspelling of your name. I apologize to you Aletheia, since I see that I’ve misspelled it as much as anyone. Importantly, I have made a free will choice and have personally decided to control myself and attempt to do better and not to spell it incorrectly anymore. This process of trying to do better is called "repentance".

1) REGARDING THE DOCTRINE THAT GRACE MAKES REPENTANCE UNNECESSARY

Clear said: The same pattern exists in this debate that existed in the ancient debates. There is an attempt to separate repentance and obedience from their inseparable context WITH the principle of Grace (i.e. charity). If they are separated from this context, they will become unreasonable.
Aletheia The only people who find obedience to God unsavory are those who have not been regenerated.

My point is that the ancients understood that Grace, repentance, and obedience acted together, in a synergistic balance. If one creates a theory that takes any one of the principles out of this important context, then the principles cannot make the same sense in relation to the atonement of Jesus Christ.
For example: If grace overshadows and eclipses all other principles, then there is no need for a redeemer. A merciful God who is not required to administer Justice, nor repentance nor obedience could have simply created perfect beings who needed no redemption. Such a God need not have placed Adam in the position where he would disobey God and thus undergone "the fall of Adam". Such a God could have simply extended Grace and Mercy to Adam after eating of the tree of knowledge and have forgiven him without having Adam and the rest of us undergo "a fall". If there was no "fall of mankind", then there would have been no need for a redeemer. Thus, If God HAD either created people perfectly, or extended mercy and Grace to Adam, there was no need for a redeemer in this scenario of absolute grace.


2) REGARDING ALETHEIA'S POSITION ON PERSONAL REPENTANCE

Aletheia said: "The only people who find obedience to God unsavory are those who have not been regenerated".

Clear replied: Aletheia, I very much agree with the statement. However, does this admission mean that you are finally willing to admit that you, like all others, must start a process of repentance to ultimately be forgiven for your sins?
Aletheia responded :No, God saves sinners and brings them to a godly sorrow for their sins.

So, if you are, so far, refusing to repent of your sins, and refusing to admit that such repentance is necessary, have you at least, come to a "godly sorrow for your sins"?


3) GRACE DOES NOT RENDER EITHER REPENTANCE NOR OBEDIENCE OBSOLETE

Clear said: "In the same way that Moses warns against the "shifting" of doctrinal boundaries, the early Christians warn against the ultimate results of "grace renders repentance obsolete" theory in their observation of those who misused the concept of "grace" ultimately : There were other corruptions to be sure, but the consequences of the theory that "grace renders repentance obsolete" is important since those who misused such theories about the grace of Jesus continued to develop other heresies and evil behaviors that resulted from disobedience (since "grace" rendered obedience less important to many of those who adopted this doctrine). Once repentance and obedience were rendered obsolete in this early misuse of "Grace covers everything", then many succumbed to disobedience and abandoned even the facade of repentance."
Aletheia replied : Obedience is not rendered obsolete by God's grace.

"Grace renders REPENTANCE obsolete" was the principle that so heretical to the early christians and caused so much grief to the ancient Christians. Whether the shift of words in your re-write was a mistake or purposeful, I neither case I agree very much agree that Grace does NOT render repentance NOR obedience obsolete.


4) REGARDING THE HYPOCRITICAL USE OF THE DOCTRINE THAT "GRACE RENDERS REPENTANCE OBSOLETE

Clear wrote : "They [the Heretics who claimed Aletheian "grace renders repentance obsolete" as a new doctrine] claimed to be covered by the Grace of God since they "believed" in Jesus. Ignatius warns specifically: Those who misused the doctrine of "grace renders repentance obsolete" lost their care for the widows and their fellow men, they became more contentious and obstinante, more desirous of arguing to justify their theory (since it relieved them of responsibilities they did not want) and ultimately many were excluded from the Church. However, the counterfeits still called themselves "Christians" and the early texts lament that the church was mocked and derided by non-Christians once the non-christians saw the conduct of such individuals, since they claimed to be sanctified, yet their conduct became licentious and as common as the pagans.

aletheia replied: Why bring up the topic of hypocrites? God hasn't made them new creatures. They haven't been saved.

Aletheia, your question caused me to think about the difference between hypocrisy and heresy. Though the ancient Christians (ca. 70-150 a.d.) labeled as "Heretics", those who misused the doctrine of Grace in the manner that your theory of Grace suggests abusing it. Still, I do not think that ALL of these heretics were "hypocrites". The heresy that "grace renders repentance obsolete" was an attractive doctrine and thus it attracted many who were insincere and simply looking for a reason NOT to repent, a reason NOT to obey (i.e. they were abusing the more pure intention of your theory). Thus your theory attracted many with moral defects.
Yet, I believe SOME of these individuals sincerely believed in this new doctrine. I think that some of these individuals SINCERELY believed that they were "regenerated" and "born again" and claimed "sanctification". For example, I do NOT think you are a hypocrite for this specific belief. I believe that you are sincere in this belief and I honor sincerity. The early Christian complaint against individuals holding your belief was, I think, based on the fact that some of the individuals initially felt "saved" for years before becoming less zealous and falling into the bad habits by which Christianity suffered a loss of Credibility (among the Pagans who saw the conduct of the heretics). If you maintain your sincerity and maintain a willingness to do whatever God leads you to do, I believe he will lead you, eventually into the same path of repentance as he led the ancient saints.

5) ANOTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL REASON FOR GENERATING THE NEW DOCTRINE OF "GRACE RENDERS REPENTANCE OBSOLETE"

Clear in Post #182 I do not really know the underlying psychological motive for the development of the doctrine that "Grace renders repentance obsolete". I have wondered if, for Alethians, the theory of "Grace renders repentance obsolete" is a phenomenon of moral laziness and / or a lack of context (since the doctrine cannot survive if Grace remains connected to the principles of Repentance and obedience. (see the discussion below). It is a theory of simply "opening the can of righteousness by faith". No preparation nor work is involved since the righteousness is already prepared and cooked and the meal doesn’t even need to be warmed. You simply open the can by faith and open your mouth, while you are spoon-fed salvation.

Since I wrote this, I’ve wondered reconsidered if among the several "evil" psychological motives for developing your theory of "grace renders repentance obsolete" (anciently), there wasn’t an additional motive among them that was not evil, but was simply "misguided"..
For example: perhaps the reason to develop this doctrine might also have been a well-intentioned "embellishment" of the doctrine of Grace. Just as one of the motives for the creation of the doctrine of "Creation out of nothing" was driven, partly out of a desire to make an even "greater" and more "splendid" claim for God than he made for himself. If the originators of the doctrine that God created from "nothing" felt that a God who can create out of "nothing" is more "powerful" and "greater" than the God who requires matter. Perhaps, In the same way, the originators of the doctrine of "grace renders repentance obsolete" were trying to embellish God so that a God who doesn’t require men to repent of evil has a "greater and finer grace" than a God who commands all men to repent of evil.
I have not studied the data in this regard, but it occurred to me that not all heresies originate from "evil intentions, but some may originate simply from "misguided" intentions, being "tricked by the adversary" (1cl 51:1).

Clear
twdrsiacro8.2
I wanted to comment to the LDS regarding this doctrine, I simply don’t have time but will try to get to that part of my post tomorrow if I am able.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I'm not debating the validity of the Bible.* I'm asking questions about your sense of what the grounds are for God rescuing us? If you claim Deity saves simply to show His mercy, then that God appears a narcissist. If that is wrong, then you would need to explain why it isn't narcissistic to do a thing so that thing reflects back on how grand the agent is.

*Note: the vast swath of Christian sects appeal to the Bible, but do not necessarily hold that God rescues man so to show His mercy. Simply citing the Bible alone will not due. If you wish to appeal to say Romans 9:13-24, you must at least give argument why the long tradition that understands this as referring to the House of Israel and is not reducible to the individual is wrong.

This thread is about LDS Atonement. If you wish to discuss something else you need to start your own thread.

 

[Watchmen]

She can dish it but she can't take it.

Aletheia, since you always say "this thread is about the LDS atonement" it's not really a level playing field. May I suggest a one-on-one debate between you and Orontes?

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Aletheia :
I saw your comment regarding the misspelling of your name. I apologize to you Aletheia, since I see that I’ve misspelled it as much as anyone. Importantly, I have made a free will choice and have personally decided to control myself and attempt to do better and not to spell it incorrectly anymore.

Thank you.

This process of trying to do better is called "repentance".

According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 58, trying to do better is not the same as repentance. Repentance is the confessing and forsaking of sin. But maybe the Doctrine and Covenants means nothing to you.

1) REGARDING THE DOCTRINE THAT GRACE MAKES REPENTANCE UNNECESSARY


My point is that the ancients...

There were many ancients and some were heretics.

Aletheia, your question caused me to think about the difference between hypocrisy and heresy. Though the ancient Christians (ca. 70-150 a.d.) labeled as "Heretics", those who misused the doctrine of Grace in the manner that your theory of Grace suggests abusing it. Still, I do not think that ALL of these heretics were "hypocrites".

You and I do not necessarily agree on who is a Christian and who is a heretic, but that is not the topic of LDS atonement. If you are LDS, then you may feel a need to debate who is right and who is wrong. But every time we get into a debate about synergism versus monergism, we are off topic. The question is, "Do I have a correct understanding of the LDS beliefs about the atonement?"

The heresy that "grace renders repentance obsolete" was an attractive doctrine and thus it attracted many who were insincere and simply looking for a reason NOT to repent, a reason NOT to obey (i.e. they were abusing the more pure intention of your theory). Thus your theory attracted many with moral defects.

How rude it is to suggest that non-synergistic beliefs promote disobedience to God. That is totally absurd as well! BTW, it is not my theory.

Yet, I believe SOME of these individuals sincerely believed in this new doctrine.

There is no point in arguing in a thread about the LDS atonement that non-LDS beliefs are new doctrines. This thread was not created for the purpose of promoting Joseph Smith's views of existing Christian doctrines when he wrote one of his versions of the First Vision:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Joseph Smith History, Chapter One, lds.org

I think that some of these individuals SINCERELY believed that they were "regenerated" and "born again" and claimed "sanctification".

Good for you! But some people sincerely believed that they deserved to know the truth, and thus do know it, while others only think they know the truth. There are many sincere people in the world.

For example, I do NOT think you are a hypocrite for this specific belief. I believe that you are sincere in this belief and I honor sincerity. The early Christian complaint against individuals holding your belief was, I think, based on the fact that some of the individuals initially felt "saved" for years before becoming less zealous and falling into the bad habits by which Christianity suffered a loss of Credibility (among the Pagans who saw the conduct of the heretics).

Salvation is a new birth, not merely a feeling.

If you maintain your sincerity and maintain a willingness to do whatever God leads you to do, I believe he will lead you, eventually into the same path of repentance as he led the ancient saints.

How arrogant it is to look down on others with the supposition that they are committing more sins that the one doling out this sort of belief. You didn't know any ancient saints and you don't know me and if you did know me, you wouldn't know my heart.

 

[Clear]

Aletheia, your question caused me to think about the difference between hypocrisy and heresy. Though the ancient Christians (ca. 70-150 a.d.) labeled as "Heretics", those who misused the doctrine of Grace in the manner that your theory of Grace suggests abusing it. Still, I do not think that ALL of these heretics were "hypocrites". The heresy that "grace renders repentance obsolete" was an attractive doctrine and thus it attracted many who were insincere and simply looking for a reason NOT to repent, a reason NOT to obey (i.e. they were abusing the more pure intention of your theory). Thus your theory attracted many with moral defects. Yet, I believe SOME of these individuals sincerely believed in this new doctrine. I think that some of these individuals SINCERELY believed that they were "regenerated" and "born again" and claimed "sanctification". For example, I do NOT think you are a hypocrite for this specific belief. I believe that you are sincere in this belief and I honor sincerity. The early Christian complaint against individuals holding your belief was, I think, based on the fact that some of the individuals initially felt "saved" for years before becoming less zealous and falling into the bad habits by which Christianity suffered a loss of Credibility (among the Pagans who saw the conduct of the heretics). If you maintain your sincerity and maintain a willingness to do whatever God leads you to do, I believe he will lead you, eventually into the same path of repentance as he led the ancient saints.

"You and I do not necessarily agree on who is a Christian and who is a heretic, but that is not the topic of LDS atonement. If you are LDS, then you may feel a need to debate who is right and who is wrong. But every time we get into a debate about synergism versus monergism, we are off topic. The question is, "Do I have a correct understanding of the LDS beliefs about the atonement?"

Aletheia, I think YOU have already indicated that YOU do NOT have a correct understanding regarding the LDS atonement. You refuse to see this. Part of this is simple obstinance and refusal to see the truth where it lies in it's most simple form. For example: Consider your response when I was trying to apologize for writing your name incorrectly (I honestly NEVER wrote it incorrectly on purpose) :

I saw your comment regarding the misspelling of your name. I apologize to you Aletheia, since I see that I’ve misspelled it as much as anyone. Importantly, I have made a free will choice and have personally decided to control myself and attempt to do better and not to spell it incorrectly anymore. This process of trying to do better is called "repentance".

You responded:

"According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 58, trying to do better is not the same as repentance. Repentance is the confessing and forsaking of sin. But maybe the Doctrine and Covenants means nothing to you."

If you look at my sentence you will see that I DID "confess" to you that was making errors and I DID decide to "forsake" my error by attempting to always spell it correctly from now on.

Just as you could not understand that my personal "confession" and "forsaking" fit the mold for the "confession" and "forsaking" of the very verse you quoted (but do NOT understand), unless you give up the obstinance and your commitment to find error where there is none, you will not be able to see the truth in other most simple principles. If you are unable to see it in the simplest principles, how will the LDS help you see in complex forms what you refuse to see in the simple forms? It is NOT your religion that keeps you from making such mistakes, it is your personality. You can fix this problem.

Clear
twvitzneuu8

 

[Katzpur]

I'm starting to think that the LDS must be a heck of a lot smarter than the average Christian. Our doctrine on the atonement is not the slightest bit complicated. It shouldn't take 237 posts for anybody to understand it. Since it couldn't possibly be simple obstinance, it's simply got to be stupidity. What else can we conclude?

 

[edward]

I'm starting to think that the LDS must be a heck of a lot smarter than the average Christian. Our doctrine on the atonement is not the slightest bit complicated. It shouldn't take 237 posts for anybody to understand it. Since it couldn't possibly be simple obstinance [sic], it's simply got to be stupidity. What else can we conclude?

Why wouldn't you think that your group is "a heck of a lot smarter?" After all, aren't you just a little prejudiced? Also, I'm sure that you can't believe that all 237 posts addressed the concept of LDS atonement. Considering the number of times that posters has to be reminded what the OP was, perhaps half of the posts addressed LDS atonement, but perhaps even that estimation is being generous. Perhaps all of these attempts at deviation were what caused the number of posts. Evasion is a powerful ploy when used to avoid discussing the issues.

Have a great week-end.

Edward

 

[edward]

BUMP: [initially poosted to Clear on 26 May 09 - post # 186]

Without plowing through page after page of dialogue, can you tell me, Clear, where any Christian has posted to this thread that they did not need to repent? Is it not grace that gives us the ability to repent?

Lastly, out of curiosity, given your dismal view of the 21st century church, where do you believe the authentic church lies?

Thanks and enjoy your flight.

Edward