Blogging Through the Book of Mormon

Having explained the connection between the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, Paul now helps us understand the connection between these events and ourselves. Because Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all to overcome sin, Paul asks “shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” This question could mean “does that mean that we don’t have to do anything because Jesus has us covered?” Paul answers, “God forbid” which is interpreted as “may it not be!” We are absolutely not to continue in sin just because God has already suffered and paid for it. Being righteous is hard enough when you are trying your best, to add in to the mix sins knowingly committed, it becomes almost impossible. And how terrible is that to understand the atonement and the price that Jesus paid for it and then say, “if I commit this sin, Jesus will have had to suffer even more so that I can do it, but oh well, that’s what he...

We’ve covered about a need for being saved and we’ve covered how that actually works and why, but it’s a pretty complex concept so Paul addresses one possible concern, which is how one man can atone for all the sins of mankind. Paul doesn’t initially name the culprit, but explains, “wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned… for if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” To explain this further, and actually quoting Paul here, James E. Talmage says in “Jesus the Christ,” As the penalty incident to the fall came upon the race through an individual act, it would manifestly unjust, and therefore impossible as part of the divine purpose, to make all men suffer the results thereof without provision for deliverance. Moreover, since by the ...

One of the things that I mentioned yesterday was something that profoundly impacted me when I first heard it about ten years ago, and that is that the purpose of the atonement isn’t just so that we can live, but that we can live more abundantly. If we look at the atonement from a purely “Christ paid for our sins, therefore we can be forgiven of our sins,” yes it’s absolutely accurate, but we miss out of so much of the beauty and gifts and love that the atonement also was performed to give. In “The Infinite Atonement,” Tad R. Callister begins the introduction by saying, “A person studying the Atonement is somewhat like the man who retreats to his mountain cabin to enjoy the scenery. If he looks our the window to the east, he will see the snow-capped peaks of the Rockies; but if he fails to examine the view on the west, he will miss the crimson-streaked sunset on the horizon; if he neglects the scene to the north, he will never see the shimmerin...

Chapter 5 starts introducing new concepts here, which of “peace with God,” “hope,” and “love.” Abraham demonstrated firmness in faith, even when life didn’t work out the way that he wanted. But I think that stating it like this makes it sound like he was holding on for dear life and miserable while he waited on the Lord, but we know that that’s not the case. God doesn’t want us to be unhappy while waiting, he wants us to be happy, even if we aren’t getting what we want at the moment. And really, that’s what the plan of salvation is, that we can be happy in all circumstances, even if they are dire. Viktor Frankyl talks about this very concept in his excellent book “Man’s Search for Meaning” where he recounts his time as a prisoner in concentration camps in Germany during the 1940’s. The concept is pretty counterintuitive because it doesn’t make sense that your emotions can be independent of...

Going back to the water on the hill in the desert analogy, all three of the options given yesterday play into the life saving as a whole. Ultimately, on a cellular level, only the water can save you regardless of how much you believe or how much you walk to the hill. This is an excellent illustration of how we are completely and totally dependent on the atonement for our salvation, it is truly the only way back to God. This analogy also answers a lot of the questions as far as spiritual “currency” that is used to pay justice. Our belief and our personal efforts can not create water, and water is the only thing that our cells can use to nourish themselves and stay alive. We can not create the water, no matter what we do or believe, we can not do it. Likewise, we can not pay our own debt to justice. Well, that’s not true, we know that those who refuse to repent will have to pay for their own sins, but they still won’t be worthy to be in God’s presence. Tha...

I’ve been trying to think about an outline for Romans, or some type of progression, and I guess I just want it to be more linear because I struggle with the language. At the time Romans was written, many Jews believed that they would be saved because of their heritage and because of their obedience to the Law of Moses. Paul is trying to explain that this is not the case. One resource that has helped me with this concept is the seminary student manual (SM). It says, “Imagine that you are dying of thirst in the desert and that there is a bottle of water on top of a nearby hill. Which of the following options will save you? Your belief that the water can save you. (Yes, because if you don’t believe that the water can save you, then you will make no effort to reach it.) Your effort to get to the water and drink it. (Yes, because the water can be there and you can believe in its saving abilities all day long, but if you don’t do anything about it, then it doesn...

There is a phrase in verse 22 that is interesting. It seems to me like verse 21 is saying something to the effect of “the scriptures tell us that God is also righteous outside of the law.” What does that mean? The NLT quotes verse 21 as, “But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.” That doesn’t seem right to me because it makes it sound like God will redeem us even if we don’t even try to keep the commandments, which we know is not true. But if we look at it another way, we might take it as saying that God has shown us a way to be made right with him even if we aren’t perfect at keeping the commandments, which is true. This “way” that God shows us is the interesting phrase from verse 22 which describes the way as “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them th...

Romans is really hard for me, really, really hard. Between my avoidance, work, and the holiday, I’ve definitely been slacking. But I feel like even though I know and understand these principles, here I am learning how to capably teach them to others. Some of the concepts covered in Romans 3:19-31 are: 1. Only those who are given the law are expected to live by it. This is an interesting concept because we know that a loving God will not hold people accountable for doing things they didn’t know were wrong. But we also know that ignorance is not an excuse for disobedience in the eyes of justice. If you kill someone, even if you don’t know that it’s wrong, pain has been created, a life has been altered, and payment must be made for that. Then how can a merciful God hold us accountable for broken laws that we didn’t even know about? The atonement allows us to spiritually grow at our own pace. Without the atonement, we would be liable for every misstep on the...

I have to be honest for a second here; I have been kind of avoiding studying because I just don’t get what Paul is talking about. I mean, he’s explaining a concept that I already understand in a way that I have no idea what he’s talking about, that all seems kind of redundant. That probably sounds really awful, but I really love learning new perspectives and contexts and why things make sense and different things like that, but talking about stuff I already know, using language that is too abstract for me… I really struggle with that. What can I possibly learn from this? One thing that came to mind is that Paul presents arguments that his readers might make to dispute the doctrine, and if those arguments were relevant way back then, then they would be relevant now. So maybe I could learn to understand why the different perspectives arose and what the meanings of Paul’s answers are. Another reason why I might have been struggling is because of the natural b...