Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity/Archive 14

message: The article says concerning the sufferings of Christ that "mankind would be lost without it".  
Why is this more accurate, than to say that "each one will suffer these torments themselves, if they do not take advantage of Christ's suffering for them"?  This was how the Mormon atonement was explained to me years ago, and for years it seemed to be confirmed by my conversations (I'm in my fifties).  But these days, that is not how it is explained, and I keep running into Mormon statements now that lead me to think this was never really LDS doctrine.  
In fact, I get the impression now that it is considered unorthodox to think that the atonement is anything but absolutely necessary.  In contrast, the other view struck me as saying that it is necessary, unless you want to go through the same thing yourself (leaving me to reason, who knows if anyone can do that, since it was a terrible thing even for the Lord to go through).  
In other words, the other view was that the atonement is exceedingly generous and gracious (and this "graciousness" was how grace was explained to me, just as the Law used to be explained to me as being a gift of exceeding helpfulness and generosity - a gift, without which we'd have to figure things out on our own).  It might occur to you how this struck me as being an even more sharply different expression of the atonement, and the Law.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my 2 cents-  Since the savior was chosen before the foundation of the world, even before the fall of Adam, it seems clear to me that he was always necessary, and no man can save himself.  I don't know of any scriptural referrence to paying for sins yourself.  Blood Atonement comes close, I suppose, but that is not generally considered doctrinal either. Bytebear 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was told that this was clearly spelled out in the D&C - but I wouldn't be able to tell you where. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my understanding as well, Mark.  Nobody is forced to accept Jesus as the Christ, although they will eventually have to recognize him as the Son of God.  Those who have refused to accept the atonement will have to suffer for their own sins.  The atonement is necessary for the rest of us. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer to your question, Mark, is that both statements are true.  D+C D+C 19 makes it clear that if a person does not accept the offering Jesus Christ made in the atonement, he must suffer as Jesus Did, but it's not clear that that means paying the price and then you get a "get out of jail" card. We believe in three degrees of Glory, the lowest of which is the Telestial and we know that even some pretty bad folks may eventually enter there (provided they are not "Sons of Perdition" ~ a discussion for another day. See D+C 76 for a full explanation of the three kingdoms and who goes where :-) . But even in that state, I think (this is my opinion) there will be that ache of not being able to progress for eternity like one can in the Celestial kingdom, and they will never enjoy the presence of the Father or Son (though they will be ministered to by the Holy Ghost). So it's also true to say mankind would be lost without the Atonement. We do believe in the grace and graciousness of God, but people need to avail themselves of that grace through faith, repentance and obedience to God and God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance D+C 1:31.  The Atonement is absolutely necessary to the salvation of Mankind and it is the central act for Mormons upon which every other aspect of our faith depends. This concept has been taught in some shape or form in every manual, magazine, General Conference, etc, that I've seen during my 12+ years as a member. It is not a teaching that has fallen out of favor at all in the Church. Everything else in the Church (sacrament meeting, Temple attendance, baptism, priesthood, etc, etc) would be absolutely meaningless and impotent without the Atonement. Joseph Smith said:  “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938], p. 121). A number of other General Authorities have likewise made that point during talks I've heard them give. This Article is one example. Mpschmitt1 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll maintain my opinion that the difference here is real, but not obvious.  However, Storm Rider is on the right track for putting his finger on it, as I understand it.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessity of atonement 

message: :: 74s181, you think that I've given you a good metaphor in "fussing over a corpse", but you don't realize that what I've given you is insight into why our belief is not important to you, at the same time that I've directed you toward what we believe is true in our belief.  I've done this by pointing you to what is important to us, which is the same thing that is repugnant to you.  
:: But since you seem to enjoy my metaphors more than you understand them, let me give you another one.  This is a parable about wheel-barrows.  The first wheel barrow stands for the explanation of "what is important?", the second stands for the section of the article that debates "what is true?"
A land-owner was looking for a man to hire for a task.  "I need this hole filled up before the end of the day", he said to the first man he found, "I'll see if you are qualified for the job. You can use the dirt that we've taken from digging for the foundation of my mansion over there".  The boss provided the man with a wheel-barrow and a shovel, and the man went to work.
Progress was slow at first, but the contractor found a second man.  "I need this hole filled up before the end of the day", he said, "pitch in to help that man over there, and I'll consider you for a better job if you're qualified".  The boss provided him with a wheel-barrow, and the man set off to work.
When he arrived where the first fellow was busy filling up the hole, he was cheerfully greeted.  "Thank goodness you're here", the first man said, "take this shovel.  I'll fill and you empty".
"Are you crazy?", said the second man. "There's only one shovel; take it with you to fill the second wheel-barrow."
The first man was amazed, and angry.  "I have an idea", said the first man, and he began shoveling dirt from one wheel barrow to the other.  
"What are you doing? Stop that!", said the second man, "Don't fill the second wheel-barrow with the contents of the first.  Empty the dirt into the hole."
"I asked you to empty it, and you didn't want to do it.  So, I'm filling your wheel-barrow with the contents of mine.  Then I'll go get some more dirt in my wheel-barrow and you can empty the dirt from yours, if that's the way you want it."
"This is the same problem as before.", he said, "I don't have a shovel. I only have a wheel-barrow".
"I offered you a shovel", said the first man, "and you refused to do any work."
"You are an idiot", the second man fumed.
At that time, the owner came by to ask the first man how things are going.  "This fellow is lazy", he told the boss, "he wants me to do all the work.  I asked him to do the emptying, and I would do the filling, but he insisted that I do it all."  
"This boy is stupid", said the second man, "he didn't even realize that to fill the wheel-barrow, he would need to take the shovel with him, leaving me with no way to empty the one that is full."  
"If I had given you only one wheel-barrow you would have listened to your brother", the contractor said to the second man, "You would have emptied the wheel-barrow and taken it to your brother so that he can fill it.  You accuse your brother of being an idiot, but you are the fool"  Then he turned to the first man, "If you had shown your intention by doing the work, the second man would have understood you when you spoke.  You accused your brother of being slack, but you are the one who refused to work.  If neither of you is capable of filling a hole together, neither are you qualified to work on the foundations of my mansion."
:: I can only help you to see what I mean by doing the work to develop the article in the way that I've tried in vain to explain.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read thru this six times and I can't even come up with a wrong interpretation. You said I had a problem with trust.  A while back you also said that the good will of the LDS towards MC is not reciprocated, and that your goal is to destroy the LDS church.  But I have assumed good faith in regards to this article and tried to understand what you were trying to say. I thought I was finally begining to understood where you were going, and I tried to go along, but now I am not so sure.  It feels to me like we're building on sand. I thought it made sense to try to establish some kind of consensus on what we're trying to do here, but it seems like building on sand is what you want. So I'm going to opt out of the discussion and focus on editing for a while.  Maybe that is what you meant, maybe I am the lazy man. Ok, I'll shut up and dig. 74s181 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Focus on what's important to this present task, write a neutral encyclopedia article (that is different than "balanced"), eliminate the debate approach,  and this will provide you with plenty of opportunity to explain what Mormons believe to be true (that's not the full interpretation of the parable; but it's close enough).  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parable of the wheel-barrows 

message: Wesley marked this with a 'fact' tag.  I originally added this, so I tried to find a reference to cite, and could not find a direct reference.  So I removed the statement on compatibility of Old Roman Symbol and LDS doctrine of the Godhead.  74s181 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Roman Symbol 

message: I added some subsection headers to segment LDS and MC perspectives.  I didn't think they needed to be indexed, but I think it will help keep the structure of the presentation.  If nobody objects, I can add them to the next section as well. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be something more clear than "common beliefs".  Perhaps, "overlapping beliefs" would say the same thing, without implying that the beliefs would prove identical on these points, with close examination.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a pervasive feature of this controversy, that we have different ideas of what we have "in common", but there is no dispute that there is considerable overlap in the language that we use to say very different things.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've retitled these unindexed sub-heads as "comparable beliefs" - this seems to strike the right balance.  What do you think?  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, thanks! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection headers 

message: Something broke the footnotes, but I can't tell where it happened.  Please fix. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found and fixed the missing ref token. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix footnotes 

message: A very interesting glitch has been introduced into the edit history on the article page.  Although the article displays the latest edit, the history does not - a sign of database corruption.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now, a minute later, it's back to normal.  Hm. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could have been your local browser cache.  Bytebear 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History loop - meta