First verses Book of Mormon/Bible comparisons

LittleNipper said:

Actually, JESUS CHRIST several times indicated that no one could take HIS life, unless HE gave it up... "Father, into thy hand do I ..."

Click to expand...

And this makes a difference to my previous statement... how?

Humanistheart said:

I am aware that it's more comparible in mormon theology, the idea of father killing son, which is why I through in 'mainstream' christian when answering you, however I am curious what you mean by the sacrifice was enormous? There are more painful ways of dieing, and jesus is, if I'm not mistaken more or less garanteed to go to the highest level of the celestial kindgom.

Click to expand...

From what I have heard, crucifixion is among the most horrendous ways of dying. The way in which Jesus actually died, however, is not really that critical to the enormity of the sacrifice in my opinion. As you may or may not know, we believe that the actual debt for our sins was paid in Gethsemane and the suffering Christ endured at that time far exceeded that which He experienced on the cross. As far as Jesus being "guaranteed to go to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom," I know where you're coming from, but to me, as a member of the Church, it seems kind of odd to hear it expressed that way. I mean, like His Father, He is God. He is exempt from the judgment mankind will experience. His purpose in coming to Earth was not the same as the rest of ours was.

Also, since heavenly father set the rules that required the sacrifice in the first place the entire act seemed needless from my point of view. But what do you think?

Click to expand...

When put that way, the Atonement would be needless. Of course, I am looking at it from an entirely different perspective than you are. I believe that God created the world and gave us the opportunity to experience mortality, knowing that in order for us to be able to become like Him, we would need to be tried and tested. We could be strengthened by our experiences or weakened (maybe even destroyed) by them. One thing for sure was that, being given free agency, we would be certain to sin. I have heard people argue that God didn't need to require Jesus to pay the price for our sins; He could have simply forgiven us if we repented, eliminating the need for anyone to suffer. (This, I think, is where you're coming from when you said that "Heavenly Father set the rules that required the sacrifice.) To me, as nice as that alternative sounds on the surface, it would be illogical. If there are rules at all, there have to be consequences for breaking them. If there are no consequences, there might as well be no rules. If there were no rules, there would be no right choices and no wrong choices, hence no good and no evil. In Mormonism, the need for both good and evil -- and the ability to choose between them -- is essential to progress. To us, God provided a way for us to return to His presence without having to suffer the consequences of having broken the rules. Of course, repentence is still necessary, but for Him to have been willing to allow His Only Begotten Son to have taken upon himself the debt incurred by billions of us was really an enormous sacrifice. The sacrifice was not just the Son's, but the Father's as well. As any parent knows, watching a child suffer is a horrible experience.

Humanistheart said:

I am aware that it's more comparible in mormon theology, the idea of father killing son, which is why I through in 'mainstream' christian when answering you, however I am curious what you mean by the sacrifice was enormous? There are more painful ways of dieing, and jesus is, if I'm not mistaken more or less garanteed to go to the highest level of the celestial kindgom. Also, since heavenly father set the rules that required the sacrifice in the first place the entire act seemed needless from my point of view. But what do you think?

Click to expand...

To add a little bit of insight, I for one do not believe that Heavenly Father set the rules. The rules governing morality, good, and evil are as much a part of the universe as the laws of physics are. I don't think God made these laws up; he simply understands them and uses that knowledge to guide and help us.

Katzpur said:

I have heard people argue that God didn't need to require Jesus to pay the price for our sins; He could have simply forgiven us if we repented, eliminating the need for anyone to suffer. (This, I think, is where you're coming from when you said that "Heavenly Father set the rules that required the sacrifice.) To me, as nice as that alternative sounds on the surface, it would be illogical. If there are rules at all, there have to be consequences for breaking them. If there are no consequences, there might as well be no rules. If there were no rules, there would be no right choices and no wrong choices, hence no good and no evil. In Mormonism, the need for both good and evil -- and the ability to choose between them -- is essential to progress. To us, God provided a way for us to return to His presence without having to suffer the consequences of having broken the rules.

Click to expand...

To me, this seems conflicting: if God provides us a way to avoid the consequences, then for us there are no consequences... but you said that consequences are necessary.

DavyCrocket2003 said:

To add a little bit of insight, I for one do not believe that Heavenly Father set the rules. The rules governing morality, good, and evil are as much a part of the universe as the laws of physics are. I don't think God made these laws up; he simply understands them and uses that knowledge to guide and help us.

Click to expand...

That would make for a more ethical contruct, something mormons are better at than mainstream christians, however in your example if the laws of morality are set, then why is it wrong for a human to kill on a whim but when god tell you to kill and you don't it's wrong, and why is it okay for the father to committe genocide amoung his children but we can't do it without permission? It doesnt' sound like this god is following the laws very well.

Katzpur said:

From what I have heard, crucifixion is among the most horrendous ways of dying. ..

Click to expand...

There was an old group in the america's. When they captured you they'd peel your skin off, just the top level's, tie you to a stake in the middle of a hot feild, and leave you there to die. Bugs and birds eating away at your flesh, dieing of dehydration and starvation as you're slowly eaten alive. Now that's a horrendous way to die. But your right, that's an inconsequencail detail either way.

Katzpur said:

The way in which Jesus actually died, however, is not really that critical to the enormity of the sacrifice in my opinion. As you may or may not know, we believe that the actual debt for our sins was paid in Gethsemane and the suffering Christ endured at that time far exceeded that which He experienced on the cross. As far as Jesus being "guaranteed to go to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom," I know where you're coming from, but to me, as a member of the Church, it seems kind of odd to hear it expressed that way. I mean, like His Father, He is God. He is exempt from the judgment mankind will experience. His purpose in coming to Earth was not the same as the rest of ours was..

To me, as nice as that alternative sounds on the surface, it would be illogical. If there are rules at all, there have to be consequences for breaking them.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that mormons do not view jesus as god. Are you saying everything I was taught in my time in the church was wrong?? And didn't just a post earlier you say that jesus was god's son, NOT god?

If there are rules at all, and who set those rules? God, which brings us back to the whole, jesus was pointless example. The entire concept of jesus as a sin 'sacrifice' is illogical.

Humanistheart said:

That would make for a more ethical contruct, something mormons are better at than mainstream christians, however in your example if the laws of morality are set, then why is it wrong for a human to kill on a whim but when god tell you to kill and you don't it's wrong, and why is it okay for the father to committe genocide amoung his children but we can't do it without permission? It doesnt' sound like this god is following the laws very well.

Click to expand...

God is not breaking any moral laws. I would compare it to trying to teach a primitive race about the laws of gravity. They might think that we were making these laws up. They might point out that we are not following the laws of gravity, because we fly around in airplanes and send satellites into orbit. While it may appear that the laws of gravity are being broken, they are not. It takes a deeper understanding of the laws of physics to see this. For example, a simplistic understanding of gravity would be that all things fall to the earth. Based on this simple definition, a rocket is breaking the law of gravity. A deeper understanding of gravity is required. In the case of moral laws, a simple understanding might hold that it is always wrong to kill someone. Based on a more complete moral law, it is usually wrong to kill someone, but not always.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

To me, this seems conflicting: if God provides us a way to avoid the consequences, then for us there are no consequences... but you said that consequences are necessary.

Click to expand...

We think of sinning as incurring a debt. The consequences are that the debt must be repaid. If it is not repaid, the sinner is prohibited from being reunited with God. Jesus Christ paid the debt for us by taking upon himself our guilt. Therefore, the demands of justice are met. Because God allowed Him to do this for us, we are spared pain of being punished for our sins. Consequently the demands of mercy are also met.

Humanistheart said:

My understanding is that mormons do not view jesus as god. Are you saying everything I was taught in my time in the church was wrong?? And didn't just a post earlier you say that jesus was god's son, NOT god?

Click to expand...

Jesus is NOT "God the Father." If I gave you the impression that I believe He is, I apologize. Like most people, when I use the word "God," I am most frequently speaking of the Father. The dictionary, however, lists "God" as a synonym for "Godhead" and it would be impossible for Jesus Chirst to be a member of the Godhead without being a "Divine Being" or "Higher Power" (aka "God"). Even the Book of Mormon refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being "one God."

If there are rules at all, and who set those rules?

Click to expand...

I believe that God (the Father) set the rules for His Plan of Salvation.

The entire concept of jesus as a sin 'sacrifice' is illogical.

Click to expand...

Okay. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

DavyCrocket2003 said:

God is not breaking any moral laws. I would compare it to trying to teach a primitive race about the laws of gravity. They might think that we were making these laws up. They might point out that we are not following the laws of gravity, because we fly around in airplanes and send satellites into orbit. While it may appear that the laws of gravity are being broken, they are not. It takes a deeper understanding of the laws of physics to see this. For example, a simplistic understanding of gravity would be that all things fall to the earth. Based on this simple definition, a rocket is breaking the law of gravity. A deeper understanding of gravity is required. In the case of moral laws, a simple understanding might hold that it is always wrong to kill someone. Based on a more complete moral law, it is usually wrong to kill someone, but not always.

Click to expand...

I'd agree partially. I don't argue that killing in self defence is not immoral. However killing because someone's on land that you want, or because they don't believe in your god, I would suggest that that is not an appropriate action, which is what is displayed in the bible.

Katzpur said:

Jesus is NOT "God the Father." If I gave you the impression that I believe He is, I apologize. Like most people, when I use the word "God," I am most frequently speaking of the Father. The dictionary, however, lists "God" as a synonym for "Godhead" and it would be impossible for Jesus Chirst to be a member of the Godhead without being a "Divine Being" or "Higher Power" (aka "God"). Even the Book of Mormon refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as being "one God." .

Click to expand...

This is confusing to me. You believe jesus was our spirit brother and he's god; not god the father in a trinity but god the son of a 'godhead'. Could you ellaborate on this?

Katzpur said:

I believe that God (the Father) set the rules for His Plan of Salvation.
.

Click to expand...

Then if god the father set the rules to salvation, then he could have set them in a way that didn't require a blood sacrifice, could he not?

Humanistheart said:

This is confusing to me. You believe jesus was our spirit brother and he's god; not god the father in a trinity but god the son of a 'godhead'. Could you ellaborate on this?

Click to expand...

He's the Son of God, and as the Son of God, he has the title of "God." How can I better explain it? "Godhead" is a collective noun. By its very definition, it is comprised of more than one divine being who are fully and absolutely united in will and purpose. On the other hand, the definition of the Trinity (as defined at Nicea in 325 A.D.) means... I don't know. I've never been able to figure it out.

Then if god the father set the rules to salvation, then he could have set them in a way that didn't require a blood sacrifice, could he not?

Click to expand...

Of course. But there would have had to be some kind of punishment for disobedience. You apparently think His was unjust; I don't.

Katzpur said:

He's the Son of God, and as the Son of God, he has the title of "God." .

Click to expand...

But, in your religion I'm the son of god too, as well as all men. Am I a god then too? If not, why jesus and not me?

Katzpur said:

How can I better explain it? "Godhead" is a collective noun. By its very definition, it is comprised of more than one divine being who are fully and absolutely united in will and purpose. On the other hand, the definition of the Trinity (as defined at Nicea in 325 A.D.) means... I don't know. I've never been able to figure it out. .

Click to expand...

It is confusing yes.

Katzpur said:

Of course. But there would have had to be some kind of punishment for disobedience. You apparently think His was unjust; I don't.

Click to expand...

Why? If your father told you to kill and you didn't you think there should be a punishment for that? Punishment should be reserved for when someone does something wrong, not for when someone isn't obediant like a slave. At least in my opinion.

Humanistheart said:

But, in your religion I'm the son of god too, as well as all men. Am I a god then too? If not, why jesus and not me?

Click to expand...

You're a son of God but, unlike Jesus Christ, you are not perfect. :sorry1: You could think of yourself as a "god in embryo," but you haven't reched your full potential by a longshot. The Atonement had to be accomplished by an infinitely perfect and righteous individual.

Why? If your father told you to kill and you didn't you think there should be a punishment for that? Punishment should be reserved for when someone does something wrong, not for when someone isn't obediant like a slave. At least in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, do you know of anybody who hasn't done something wrong at sometime in his or her life? It's only the people who have done wrong, after all, who need to worry about being punished.

Katzpur said:

Of course. But there would have had to be some kind of punishment for disobedience. You apparently think His was unjust; I don't.

Click to expand...

But when the punishment is inflicted on someone other than the perpetrator, it ceases to be punishment.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

But when the punishment is inflicted on someone other than the perpetrator, it ceases to be punishment.

Click to expand...

This is how Justice and Mercy are both satisfied. Just because someone else pays the debt doesn't mean the debt was not paid.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

But when the punishment is inflicted on someone other than the perpetrator, it ceases to be punishment.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. The only way that the atonement can have any effect is for the sinner to become one with the one paying the debt. When a sinner unites himself with God, the demands of justice are met by Christ's infinite sacrifice, and the atonement is complete. Otherwise, why would repentance be necessary? That's how I see it anyway.