Mormons’ confusion about God’s Justice

We continue our comments on the manuscript sent to us by a Mormon called Stephen.(*) Click here to see the other articles in this series. You can also go to the Mormonism page to find all the articles that are in this refutation of Stephen’s document.


Stephen continues:

Now we can discuss Mercy, Justice, and Atonement.

Finally!… although these should have been studied a long time ago, as we have seen…

Stephen continues:

Why is Justice a universal principle? I finally came to understand it as a police officer.

And if one is not a police officer, then he can’t understand it?… This was a silly way to tell people that you’re a police officer, trying to impress them and to make yourself a source of trustworthy info about justice…

Stephen continues:

No matter how hardened a criminal may be, all people have a sense of justice—as long as it does not necessarily have to apply to them, of course. Is it instinctive? I came to that conclusion. We all empathize with the families of victims of deadly violence who cry out for justice, no matter what their definition of justice may be. And, we are the only “animal” on this planet with this sense of justice. Once animals lose there ability to defend their family, usually their young, their only thought is their own survival, not justice or revenge.

Can we know how this relates to God’s Justice?…

Stephen continues:

So, where did I go to find the balance of Mercy and Justice? As it turned out, the answer was in the Book of Mormon, namely in the Book of Alma.

So you went to a bad source, words of humans, instead of going to the Word of God.

Stephen continues:

It was during Alma’s discourse to his then-errant son, Corianton.

“[A]ccording to justice, the plan of redemption (Salvation) could not be brought about, only (except) on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.” (Alma 42:13) Alma went on to explain how the Atonement would appease the demands of justice and how this balance of Mercy and Justice made God a Perfect, Just and Merciful God—a God the very elements could respect and obey.

Watch the confusion in this passage: once he says that it is the repentance of man that safeguards the balance between God’s Justice and His Mercy, and once he says that it is the Atonement that keeps this balance… He can’t make up his mind…

Stephen continues:

Amulek, Alma’s missionary companion, taught the Zoramites what was needed for the Atonement.

“[A]ccording to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, . . . a great and last sacrifice; 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. [N]othing short of an infinite atonement . . . will suffice for the sins of the world. [A]nd that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.” (Alma 34:8-15)

Do you notice that Stephen has not explained yet WHY this atonement is needed?… You will notice in short how this Atonement is NOT for justice AGAINST sin, but for justice by NOT paying for our sins…

Stephen continues:

But why the need for an Infinite Atonement?

Finally he noticed that he needs to explain this… Look how he will say silly things now…

Stephen continues:

Why could it not be as Nephi of old warned, “[M]any . . . shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God . . . [A]nd if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.” (2 Nephi 28:8)

Do you see how Nephi taught something wrong? Is that how much little God hates sin?…

Stephen continues:

Why could we not pay for our own sins and still be saved? Why the need for a vicarious “infinite and eternal” sacrifice? The difference between a sacrifice by mortal men and that of the Son of God is this:

We have limited control over life.

What does this have to do with the value of our sins??…

Stephen continues:

Eventually, we all die.

And the Bible says that we die because sin entered the world. So why can’t we save ourselves from our sins??

Stephen continues:

Jesus of Nazareth was the only Soul born into mortality capable of doing as the first thief demanded, “If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.”

As the Bible says, Jesus never sinned, so He didn’t need to save Himself from sin. By the way, the thief was not asking Him to save Himself and them from sin, but from biological death on the cross…

How confused…

Stephen continues:

Our sacrifice would be finite—our lives finite. The Savior’s life was infinite.

Why? Because He ALONE is God, while we are not gods by nature?? Does this not contradict your previous philosophy that we all are gods by nature and that our spirits exist from eternity past?… Why is our sacrifice finite? Why are our lives finite?? Are we not gods with eternal souls, as you were philosophizing before?…

Readers can see the confusion of Mormons…

Stephen continues:

He has always had power to glorify Himself without going through the pains of Gethsemane and Golgotha. But He loved us enough to go through it so we too could enjoy the same glory He could have reserved for Himself.

Are we not gods like Him as you said?? Then why do we need Him??

Let’s see if Stephen will even try to explain this dilemma of his…

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ


Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 28 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

This entry was posted in Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript, Religious Movements. Bookmark the permalink.