And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam. (2 Ne 9:21)
I find this scripture interesting; particularly given the popular belief among some Christians (including some Latter-day Saints) that when we sin, we add to the pain and suffering of the Christ.
Jacob is saying that Jesus suffered the pains of all who belong to the family of Adam. Considering not everyone will repent of the sins s/he commits, one must assume that Jacob also means Jesus suffered for all sins.
In light of the recent post on the omniscience of God, and the ability for us to choose between righteousness and sin, I am left pondering how the suffering panned out. How could the Saviour suffer for our sins when they had yet to be committed and we still had the choice to avoid the sins for which He potentially suffered? Did He suffer for every possible sin? If God knows every possible decision we can make and every possible thread of our futures based on those decisions?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùas I asked in my previous post?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùperhaps then Jesus also could also suffer for every possible sin.
One can definitely take this verse too far as I once did. I was on my mission read unauthorized material (Doctrine of Salvation) when I came across JFSII’s statement that Christ redeemed the earth along with us. I don’t remember how much of what follows came from him and how much came from me, but I eventually concluded thusly:
Since Christ had to suffer the pains of everything which He redeems that means that he has suffered all the tortures which men have endured. (I had a companion who actually described the bamboo shoots under the finger nails to describe the pain of the atonement.) He also must have endured the suffering of all animals. He also must have endured the suffering of the earth, including the nuclear weapons we have detonated on it.
Wow! I concluded, Christ sure suffered a lot!
Is there anybody who actually buys this?
Suffering is only in proportion to a creatures consciousness, both pain-sensing nervous system and in terms of failed expectations. Animals don’t have much in the second regard and the earth has none at all.
In this context it is appropriate to mention Clousen’s view on the atonement, which I am not totally in concurrence with. He suggests that the atonement is not quid-pro-quo. It was not some much suffering for so much sin. It was infinite. So he felt that the image of “how many drops were spilt for me?” is misleading.
I personally do not think that Christ suffered as much as everybody combined. I also don’t agree with the idea of infinite suffering. He really did only suffer so much for so long. I prefer to think that He suffered more than anybody else could or will.
Good point, Jeffrey.
I think it is is good that Jacob specifies that Jesus suffered for all creatures who belong to the family of Adam.
Unless one goes on to extrapolate that somehow giraffes, walruses, maggots, rocks, ferns and so forth are part of the family Adam…
I’m not sure the Saviour’s suffering is quantifiable. 2 Nephi 9 and Alma 34 are emphatic that the atonement was infinite. That’s usually my answer to the “we add to Christ’s suffering with every sin” position: we can’t add to what was, by definition, an infinite suffering:
2 Nephi 9:7 “Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement–save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption…”
Alma 34:10 “For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.” [emphasis mine]
Alma 34:12 “…therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.”
Stephen Robinson does a good job of explaining this too, in Believing Christ. I’m too lazy to look up the exact reference (I know the scriptures a lot better =) but he essentially says that’s why Christ remains perfect no matter how many of our sins he atones for: infinity minus anything is still infinity; a limited amount of atonement (no matter how large) might not cover it all.
To what does “infinite” refer?
I am doubtful it refers to the number of sins for which the Christ suffered. After all, if the number of mortals is finite, than so must be the number of sins those mortals committed.
It refers to the power of the atonement—its capacity to atone for all sins, no matter how many or how few they are.
But the number of sins for which he suffered is a finite amount.
How many future beings are there who may be saved by Christ’s infinite atonement? We don’t know. Is that number a finite one? I don’t know. It seems to me that generation could go on begetting generation with no end at all.
Assuming of course that Christ’s sacrifice is the only such sacrifice throughout all eternity and that there will never be another. I’m not sure I am ready to accept Christ’s sacrifice as the sole atoning sacrifice for every being that has ever existed or ever will exist through all eternity.
I don’t know one way or the other. Neither do you. All we do know is that it is INFINITE. It is therefore at least reasonable to believe that it is the only expiatory sacrifice that ever has been or will be required.
So there is no second coming, then ltbugaf?
Not according to you, Rick.
I, on the other hand, do believe in the Second Coming of Christ. But discussion of how the Second Coming relates to the scope of Christ’s atonement would seemingly be meaningless to someone who rejects both the Atonement and the Second Coming as untruths.
Kim, to clarify what I’m talking about, in the video, “Special Witnesses of Christ” Neal A. Maxwell asks how many worlds there are with children of our Heavenly Father living on them, who fall within Christ’s atonement. He answers as much as anyone can: “We don’t know.” In addition, I wonder about future worlds created and populated by the exalted offspring of our Father in Heaven. Will the inhabitants of those worlds fall within the scope of the same atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ? It seems to me that they certainly could. The Atonement is infinite.
My point was if at some point everyone is going to be gathered up, there is a finite number of people/spirits/whatever.
Therefore the number, although large, is countable and not infinite (which is what I believe Kim’s point was).
Rick, you don’t believe there is an atonement, infinite or otherwise. You flatly reject that there will be a Second Coming. You deny that God exists, or that he has children on this or other worlds. You deny that God can go right on creating more worlds and more children, after the Second Coming, wihtout end. You also deny that any of His children will be exalted and do the same, populating still more worlds, into eternity. You mock all these ideas as “fiction.” So why do you want to discuss them?
So you *don’t* want to answer?
So you *completely* missed the answer I gave in 13 and 15?
However, to reply more directly, no. I don’t want to answer. Discussing the sacred with those who only intend to mock it is not a good thing to do. Christ had a few things to say about that, but I assume you’re not interested in them.
ltbugaff, just because a person doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean that they don’t find it sociologically intriguing. I think some of Rick’s points are worth addressing and it would be more interesting if you didn’t just dismiss him completely. People can challenging each other’s logic without having the same beliefs.
Also, it’s true that Rick views scripture as fiction, but even though he does not accept the reasons for WHY Mormons believe, I’m sure he will accept doctrinal material in a discussion about WHAT Mormons believe. I see nothing strange about his exploration about WHAT Mormons believe nor his efforts to challenge Mormons to analyze and explain those beliefs.
Some on the “Atheist” thread have also been kind enough to inform me that any discussion of God or his attributes is without meaning to atheists.
Rick has previously been kind enough to remind me I should never quote “fiction” to him, meaning scripture. I’m trying my best to take him at his word, and direct my scripturally based comments only at those to whom they might have some meaning or persuasive effect.
Well, there is a difference between quoting scipture to establish WHAT LDS beliefs are vs quoting scripture to prove LDS beliefs are true. I agree that Rick should not mock scriptoral content if he is the one asking for clarification on doctrine, but I don’t see why he would in this particular context.
Nermalcat, you should also take time to examine the content of my comments here, and notice that I have, in fact, provided an answer to every question Rick posed.
Ok ltbugaf, in #13 you didn’t answer my question and in #15 you didn’t answer *any* questions.
All you did is ask a question.
So back to the topic:
If there exists in your belief system a time when all souls will all be counted , gathered and judged it means that there is a finite number of souls.
Not infinite, due to the fact that if, as the LDS believe, there is to be a second coming one must assume that there will be and *end* to the second coming when all souls have been accounted for.
The only other alternative, assuming you believe in a second coming, is that there will be no end to the counting process since there are infinite souls.
So which is it ltbugaf?
OK, it’s just that I don’t see the point of a dismissive attitude towards Rick on this thread. I went back and read the athiest thread and it’s clear that arging the existence of God, or the truthfulness of religion would be pointless with Rick, since he views these beliefs in particular as irrational. But for the most part, exploring church doctrines and policies is not about establishing the truth of the religion, and therefore a rational discussion CAN take place.
Let me provide a few quotes from #13 and #15, to help you along:
“…how many worlds there are with children of our Heavenly Father living on them…”
“…future worlds created and populated by the exalted offspring of our Father in Heaven.”
“…God…has children on this or other worlds.”
“…God can go right on creating more worlds and more children, after the Second Coming, without end.”
“…His children will be exalted and do the same, populating still more worlds, into eternity.”
April twenty four in the year of our lord two thousand six..
…a date to live in infamy
…when Nermal actually agreed with rick about something.
:P
Nermal, I think the main “point” of a dismissive attitude towards Rick is to let him view his behavior in a mirror.
“…how many worlds there are with children of our Heavenly Father living on them…â€
It doesn’t matter as long as they are countable.
“…future worlds created and populated by the exalted offspring of our Father in Heaven.â€
…have no meaning in the context of our talking of the Christ of this world.
“…God…has children on this or other worlds.â€
…once again countable.
“…God can go right on creating more worlds and more children, after the Second Coming, without end.â€
…more on topic, but it still remains to be proven that the atonement of *this* Christ has any meaning for future worlds, there is certainly very little if any scriptural support for it, assuming a true believing LDS point of view.
“Nermal, I think the main “point†of a dismissive attitude towards Rick is to let him view his behavior in a mirror.”
Are you this condescending when attempting to convert others to the faith?
Remember: Every member a missionary…
Wow, I hope that doesn’t start happening too often now, since it would rob me of a great form of entertainment :)
It might be true that my comment has “no meaning in the context of our talking of the Christ of this world,” if we WERE talking merely of a Christ of THIS WORLD. But neither of us is doing that: I’m talking about a Christ whose Atonement is infinite and not limited to this world. You’re talking about someone who is not a Christ at all.
“it still remains to be proven that the atonement of *this* Christ has any meaning for future worlds.”
I have no idea what you could mean by “proven” here, given that your own discussion centers on a person who is not a Christ, who did not atone for anyone past, present or future. However, you’ll notice that I only said it is REASONABLE TO BELIEVE that an infinite atonement would cover such persons—reasonable to believe, not proven.
Why you think the Second Coming of Christ would limit his atonement to those who lived before it is beyond me.
(Rick, I hope you’ll forgive me if I fail to swallow a lecture on condescension from *you*. And thank you for your smarmy, condescending, sarcastic, and grossly insincere citation of David O. McKay’s words.)
Comment #31 is referring to agreeing with Rick by the way.
…the quote means so much more coming from someone who reviles President McKay as a false prophet and liar.)
Oh, I was sincere I mean I’m *this* close to converting, but now I’m not sure if I’m interested in joining an organization who would portray itself in public as you have…
Sorry, now you’ve done it.
I don’t know that “infinite” must refer to the amount of souls affected. Rather couldn’t it simply mean that it really doesn’t matter how many sins are committed by how many people…and that the rules regarding atonement are eternal?
Yes, it could mean that. It could also refer to the souls affected. All I’m suggesting is that it’s not unreasonable to believe that Christ is the Savior of an infinite number of souls. We don’t know whether that’s true, but it may be.
For that, I get attacked.
Isn’t letting someone “view their behavior in a mirror” kind of a vengeful attitude that is not condoned by Christianity at all?
I’ve suggested before that we create an ongoing, separate thread, titled “Why Ltbugaf Is a Jerk.” So far, Kim hasn’t taken up the suggestion.
In other words ltbugaf, aren’t you just “getting back” at him?
I think the fact that Rick repeatedly engages in this conversation is evidence that he does not, in actuality, have a dismissive attitude about Mormons as people.
First paragraph: See #40.
Second paragraph: I’m engaging in conversations with Rick. Does that mean I’m not dismissive, either?
Well, ltbugaf, it just appeared for a while as though you were just trying to tell Rick to not bother talking to you anymore, or perhaps you didn’t mean it and were trying to make a point (mirroring as you put it). Either way I don’t think Rick was trying to tell us leave the conversation or being spiteful. That is why I think your attitude was counterproductive.
A “why ltbugaf is a jerk” thread would be amusing. But seriously, I’m not trying to pick on you, in fact I find some of your insights to be useful. Just because I don’t agree with your tactics with Rick at this moment doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy your contributions of times. Don’t take my suggestions here as a personal attack…just constructive criticism.
ltbugaf, regarding #38
I don’t think you got “attacked”, but you did get challenged to defend your comment, which you initially seemed disinterested in doing simply because the challenger was Rick.
“Oh, I was sincere I mean I’m *this* close to converting, but now I’m not sure if I’m interested in joining an organization who would portray itself in public as you have…”
Will another appointment at Fire help, rick?
I wasn’t disinterested simply because the challenger was Rick. I was disinterested because Rick’s philosophical position was one I find dishonest.
And my other reason for reluctance to go further into discussion about that which is holy with someone who, I believed, would only “turn and rend” was explained in #18.
“Will another appointment at Fire help, rick?”
It depends … am I picking up the cheque again?
=)
Interesting comments – If we assume that each of us has the ability to become a god and lets assume 1 million years from now that ltbugaf becomes a god and starts to crate his own worlds and to people them, would the atonement of Jesus work for those people or would they need their own Jesus?
Also, if god once was a man and lived on an earth like we do, then did he have a Jesus?
Does all of gods creations have the same Jesus or is it perhaps the batch we live in has this Jesus and other batches of god’s creations have different Jesus.
Well it seems to me that if Jesus’ sacrifice applies to every being in eternity before or afterwards, that it’s quite the coincidence that this event occured on THIS planet only about 2000 years ago. Sure makes it seem more real and applicable to us than say, the event having occured 15 million light years ago on another world. Or that it won’t be happening for another 15 million light years.
Makes ALOT more sense that Jesus’ atonement applies to a particular batch of people for a particular time period up until OUR judgement day occurs. I think the term “infinite” more likely is referring to the principle of the atonement and what I said in #37.