Why do we need a Savior?

[Dan]

... and as I was on the first page of the thread the thought came to me that a great source to read for this is Lectures on Faith. Then on page two I saw that AA had referenced it partially. I think LoF does a great job explaining why God is God and why we need a savior and how our faith fits in the whole process. The LoF, BTW, used to be part of the D&C. The sections we have in the D&C were consedered the "Covenants" portion of the Doctrine and Covenants, whereas the LoF was considered the "doctrine" portion. Hence, the title"Doctrine & Covenants". But nearly 100 years ago the LoF was removed unceremonously. Yes, yes, I am familiar with the claims that it was never meant to be considered as cannonized scripture, but that is more of an apologetic hind-sight response to why it was actually removed. Prior to its removeal, the LoF was considered very authoritative.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by All-American

Problem number one is that it is sinners cannot be in the presence of God. I am not referring to those who have sinned and repented, but those who have sinned and never stopped sinning...

This sentence typifies the problem I have with the line of reasoning that seeks to explain the plan of salvation or the need for an atonement. Why is it a given that sinners cannot be in the presence of God? I know that's what we've been taught, but there is no logical reason why it is true. All your arguments that follow from the suppostion that sinners cannot be in the presence of God are meaningless unless the original suppositon is true.

I frequently see this dogmatic type of reasoning when I read religious arguments. I can accept that notion that people accept things on faith, but when I hear people declare things as though they are obvious, eternal truths, I get a little uneasy.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This sentence typifies the problem I have with the line of reasoning that seeks to explain the plan of salvation or the need for an atonement. Why is it a given that sinners cannot be in the presence of God? I know that's what we've been taught, but there is no logical reason why it is true. All your arguments that follow from the suppostion that sinners cannot be in the presence of God are meaningless unless the original suppositon is true.

I frequently see this dogmatic type of reasoning when I read religious arguments. I can accept that notion that people accept things on faith, but when I hear people declare things as though they are obvious, eternal truths, I get a little uneasy.

Again, my belief is that sinners cannot be in the presence of God because it introduces imperfection into a system of perfection. Any structure or organization that is meant to last forever will not endure if even the slightest imperfection exists, for given an infinite amount of time and exposure to an infinite range of variables and dangers, eventually any weakness will be exploited. Notice that families are not sealed until after the members of the family have performed the cleansing ordinances and travelled the symbolic route to the celesital kingdom-- marriage would not be eternal if the two participants have not reached a level of "perfection."

One of the great marvels of the nature of God is the fact that He is interdependent with His children and His creations. Each individual is a member of an incredibly complex and intricate system that God has implemented, and each perform a crucial task. Mortality, on the other hand, is designed to be a system of redundancy, such that the failure of one member will not ultimately affect the outcome of the rest of the system.

This system of redundancy allows for errors to be made but also curtails our potential-- every time we hear a mortal speak in the name of God, we have to stop and verify what he says with what he think, how we feel, and how the Spirit directs that we ought to interpret it. Imagine how complex the situation would have been for Joseph Smith if he had to stop and ask himself if Moroni had any ulterior motives! (And yes, the devil imitates angelic visitations, but God provides one simple test to distinguish true messengers from false ones.)

If any inclination towards imperfection existed in the celestial courts, a being possesing any such inclination would be utterly unable to perform any task given of him, by reason that any intelligence under his authority would be unable to have faith in God's commands when coming through that other being. The only thing he could do is be a corrupting influence;

Thus by being unable to positively contribute to, but being able only to negatively influence the works of God, a sinner cannot dwell in the presence of God.

For thus saith All-American.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

This sentence typifies the problem I have with the line of reasoning that seeks to explain the plan of salvation or the need for an atonement. Why is it a given that sinners cannot be in the presence of God? I know that's what we've been taught, but there is no logical reason why it is true. All your arguments that follow from the suppostion that sinners cannot be in the presence of God are meaningless unless the original suppositon is true.

I frequently see this dogmatic type of reasoning when I read religious arguments. I can accept that notion that people accept things on faith, but when I hear people declare things as though they are obvious, eternal truths, I get a little uneasy.

Good point. But the same is true for a lot of things. Take Euclidean geometry for example. Everything is based on a few basic assumptions which are presented without proof, since they cannot be proven. They just seem "correct". One of these is that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Or that any three points must be coplanar. You could easily argue that these examples are more "apparent" than the idea that man cannot stand in the presence of God without sin. But I think it is a decent analogy. Like the foundations of geometry, one cannot prove this theory of God either way. It is simply a matter of faith.

This is discussed in more detail in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence" (one of my favorites). Not the part about God, but the geometry example and how many of the things we promote as rock-hard science and logic are ultimately based on concepts that are accepted without proof since they simply "feel correct".

[Archaea]

There must always be a starting point, something we take on faith. In all disciplines.

We have been told and believe no impurities can withstand the presence of God; why? We can only speculate.

None of us are currently in a position to test this basic tenet.

However, why is 2 plus 2, not 5? Why is the whole not greater than the sum of the parts? Why is hydrogen the smallest atom?

Why is the number One the first whole number?

What are thoughts?

What are emotions?

Eventually, human understanding fails us, and we must start from basic agreed or stipulated points, or stand there with our fingers up our noses.

[RockyBalboa]

I typically don't respond to religious posts, simply because I often find myself at odds with the prevailing thoughts from those who claim to be deeper thinkers on what is posted and I don't want to detract from the topic nor start an argument, but I'll give a bit of my feelings on the topic.

It is my opinion that too many on here casually dismiss the real and legitimate power of faith, while simultaneously ripping into those, whether it be subtle or not, who try to use faith along with fervent prayer and study and then tell them that they aren't able to think for themselves, again whether subtle or not, because they go along or agree with what is being taught in the church.

That is all.

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

We hear all these sweeping pronouncements of why the plan of salvation and the atonement are necessary, but none of it rings true to me. If there really is a God and if he is powerful enough to create a universe, I've got to think that he could have laid things out any way he wanted. The whole notion that we are placed on earth on some kind of cosmic probation and that the only way we can get through it satisfactorily is through an atonement, just seems like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. I'm not trying to be offensive or insult anybody's beliefs, but it is honestly difficult for me to believe that all of these things are really necessary.

I can understand how you can wonder why this is all really necessary. Maybe the answer lies in that God is powerful enough to allow for another means for salvation, but has determined that the method being used is the best method to teach and to guide His children.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

I can understand how you can wonder why this is all really necessary. Maybe the answer lies in that God is powerful enough to allow for another means for salvation, but has determined that the method being used is the best method to teach and to guide His children.

Why do you necessarily believe God stands above the laws of physics and metaphysics?

A basic tenet of our religion is that God is God because He adheres to these laws. Adherence to the laws makes Him God, not vice versa.

That seems equally plausible than an arbitrary and capricious God who makes things up as we go along. Why is that version more acceptable to you? It seems less logical and rational to me.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

It is my opinion that too many on here casually dismiss the real and legitimate power of faith, while simultaneously ripping into those, whether it be subtle or not, who try to use faith along with fervent prayer and study and then tell them that they aren't able to think for themselves, again whether subtle or not, because they go along or agree with what is being taught in the church.

That is all.

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I certainly don't dismiss the importance of faith, nor do I think I have ever ripped on anyone's faith. I have also never implied that people of faith are not able to think for themselves. I only express concerns and I have struggled with in my own life.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I typically don't respond to religious posts, simply because I often find myself at odds with the prevailing thoughts from those who claim to be deeper thinkers on what is posted and I don't want to detract from the topic nor start an argument, but I'll give a bit of my feelings on the topic.

It is my opinion that too many on here casually dismiss the real and legitimate power of faith, while simultaneously ripping into those, whether it be subtle or not, who try to use faith along with fervent prayer and study and then tell them that they aren't able to think for themselves, again whether subtle or not, because they go along or agree with what is being taught in the church.

That is all.

You used too many big words for me to know if you were referring to me. But as I see it, faith is simply recognizing that what you do not know does not affect what you DO know, just as not knowing if a tree is an apple tree or a peach tree does not make it a bush.

Faith can be exercized in respect to 1) what you should know, but don't know yet, or 2) what you should not know yet. We all exercize brand #2 in this life in things as essential as the atonement-- the nature of the suffering of the Savior will remain unknown for the most part, except to those who will go through the same suffering. As for brand 1), it is only sufficient for the moment, and as soon as one is capable of learning, he should. If you don't have a testimony of the book of mormon, for example, but you know your mother does, that may be good enough at first, but at some point, you need to learn it for yourself.

Most of what we've been discussing in this thread is brand #2, though there's plenty that has been said by the leaders of the church that perhaps can be categorized as #1, in my opinion.