Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[LifeOnaPlate]

You really do not want to know what I think. But I guess since you have throughly "trashed" Elder Bruce R. McConkie you are now moving on to Elder Boyd K. Packer? That parable is inspired of God and is in our manuals, I have not seen any Prophet or Apostle contradict it. For your enjoyment I will quote the "offending parable" here, it is as quoted in the Gospel Essentials Manual:

So you can rip it apart and disbelieve it but for over 30 years it has been taught as doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I CFR any disavowals of this parable and it's teachings by any General Authority of the Church, as for anyone else it really does not matter does it?

I see at as completely possible and reasonable to think deeply about Pres. Packer's parable and to recognize its strengths as well as its weaknesses in order to better understand the atonement without "trashing" anyone. We can learn as much from the limitations of the parable as from the other aspects of it, in my opinion. In other words, seeing the parable as coming up short is not a degradation of Pres. Packer, but a recognition of the amazing nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

I'll give you an example of the limitations of Pres. Packer's parable, though useful it may often be. It seems to neglect the concept of prevenient grace, which is taught in the Book of Mormon. We learn from King Benjamin that the very opportunity to advance in this way is afforded by grace, before we even get started. The parable misses this aspect, imo. The youth just runs up a debt. Even the possibility to run up such a debt is contingent on the atonement.

There have been various theories on the atonement put forward in LDS thought from the top to bottom. For example, Pres. Faust advanced a penal-substitution theory (as did Pres. Hinckley) in the parable of the schoolhouse and the little hungry boy who stole lunch. So atonement theory in LDS thought has fluctuated and never, imo, been presented in a fully systematic way. I believe this is partially because the atonement is somewhat incomprehensible to us at this time, though we can feel its affects. Take what Pres. Faust said on that:

[T]he incomparable Atonement of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ...was the most transcendent act that has ever taken place, yet it is the most difficult to understand. My reason for wanting to learn all I can about the Atonement is partly selfish: Our salvation depends on believing in and accepting the Atonement. Such acceptance requires a continual effort to understand it more fully. The Atonement advances our mortal course of learning by making it possible for our natures to become perfect.

Though Pres. Faust advances certain partial theories on ther atonement here, I believe his message includes the acknowledgment that the atonement is difficult to understand, and that having faith in it doesn't require a perfect understanding of all the details.

No man knows the full weight of what our Savior bore, but by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know something of the supernal gift He gave us. 10 In the words of our sacrament hymn:

We may not know, we cannot tell,

What pains he had to bear,

But we believe it was for us

He hung and suffered there

(See Faust, "The Atonement: Our Greatest Hope," General Conference, Nov. 2001.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

The Parable of the Bicycle is better.

I also see limitations in the parable of the bicycle, I should note. I see its function as fruitful when it moves people to better appreciate the Savior, but as a theory on exaltation or the atonement it too comes up short. I believe these stories can be very fruitful but also believe we can talk about or recognize any limitations therein, if done appropriately and for the right reason.

[bluebell]

I think the only way this parable can make sense is if the debt owed to Jesus is something different than the debt owed to God.Only if the debt owed to Jesus is something we can actually "pay" does the parable make any sense in this respect.Because if we had the ability to "pay" the debt in the first instance, we wouldn't need to have Jesus in the picture.All the Best!--Consiglieri

This is how i've always 'read' the parable and the debt that is asked of us by Christ.

Isn't that the whole point, that Jesus paid the price for OUR sins. In your example Jon was the one who committed the crime, and if his mother paid the penalty, would it be fair for Jon to also pay the penalty i.e. both pay the penalty for the same crime? No That is the beauty of the sacrifice that Christ did for us, if we do works for our own sins, this takes away from the sacrifice that Christ has paid for us.

I completely agree.

[Uncertain]

Isn't that the whole point, that Jesus paid the price for OUR sins.

In your example Jon was the one who committed the crime, and if his mother paid the penalty, would it be fair for Jon to also pay the penalty i.e. both pay the penalty for the same crime? No That is the beauty of the sacrifice that Christ did for us, if we do works for our own sins, this takes away from the sacrifice that Christ has paid for us.

Hi Billy,

I am not arguing that both must pay the punishment. I am arguing punishing the innocent for someone else's crime is unjust. In other words the correct action would be for the guilty Jon to pay the price for his mistakes. I would admire Jons mother for her devotion and love but I would not clap her in chains for many years in place of her guilty son even if she volunteers. I mean do you see such an action as justified? Do you believe that we should change our legal system such that friends and relatives of the guilty who volunteer can pay the price in place of the criminal?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[consiglieri]

They are very long discussions, but imo, very interesting and fruitful. If anything, I am at the point where I am glad I have felt (and feel) the effects of the atonement, which keeps me going despite the cognitive disconnect. Count me in the camp who believes it is important to try to figure the atonement out, if for anything else to fully appreciate or know how to receive it. However, parables and stories, while flawed, can still be of great service.

Now I'll go read the whole thread.

Thanks for the posts, LOAP!

I agree with you that no parable yet conceived comprehends the breadth of the Atonement.

They are, at best, attempts to understand different aspects of the Atonement but, as you mention, they tend to fall apart somewhere along the way.

I think this is because the Atonement has to be experienced, not just mentally understood.

I also think this experience is different for different people, because different people react differently to, and with, the Atonement.

The way you experience the Atonement may be different from the way I experience the Atonement; and yet both our experiences could lead to salvation.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

Hi Billy,

I am not arguing that both must pay the punishment. I am arguing punishing the innocent for someone else's crime is unjust. In other words the correct action would be for the guilty Jon to pay the price for his mistakes. I would admire Jons mother for her devotion and love but I would not clap her in chains for many years in place of her guilty son even if she volunteers. I mean do you see such an action as justified? Do you believe that we should change our legal system such that friends and relatives of the guilty who volunteer can pay the price in place of the criminal?

All the Best,

Uncertain

In some respects, our justice system is already set up this way.

If i owe the government money, for example, they don't care if i pay it or if my parents pay it-just as long as it get's paid. The whole credit industry is an example of the 'we don't care who's money it is' form of reasoning, and anyone who has ever used credit has shown by their actions that they also see it as a fair system.

It really depends on what kind of 'punishment' one is thinking of. There are forms of justice that can be fulfilled equally well by someone who did not incure the debt themselves. There are ways to give both mercy and serve justice.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was born in the church, seminary, eagle scout, several years at BYU, Mission. But it has been many years since I have gone to the LDS church. I am now an EV Christian.

One of the main points that I try to make on this board is to show that LDS theology and mainstream Christianity are different on almost all apects from each other. The area of works and repentance is just one more example of these differences. Lately the mantra has been that "Just try your best, and Jesus will do the rest." (http://www.mormonwiki.org/Impossible_gospel) But this is not really what the LDS doctrine teaches, it is more a reach for perfection and to keep ALL the commandments, as noted in the ensign 2006 "When we deny ourselves â??of all ungodliness,â? then and only â??then is his grace sufficientâ? for us.

Actually there have been clear variations on this theme since the beginning of the restoration. There has been a definite ebb and flow of emphasis, I grant, but to assume that grace is a new thing in Mormonism is to miss the entire history of thought on the subject.

For example, see and please read David L. Paulsen and Cory G. Walker, "Work, Worship, and Grace," (Response to Douglas J. Davies. The Mormon Culture of Salvation: Force, Grace and Glory. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000) FARMS Review 18:2 (2006) pp. 83-177.

Now, Billy, you have the source and are without excuse. Your understanding of LDS thought is not the be-all-end-all of LDS thought.

[consiglieri]

I was born in the church, seminary, eagle scout, several years at BYU, Mission. But it has been many years since I have gone to the LDS church. I am now an EV Christian.

As a former LDS, now EV Christian, I would like to ask you your opinion about one aspect of the parable that is usually just taken for granted--What is it with God that he can't just forgive when we say we're sorry?

God tells us that we have to forgive when somebody says they're sorry, but somehow this is beyond God himself?

In other words, why is God in the parable so concerned about being "repaid"? It's not like we have anything he needs, or that he is somehow coming up short at the end of the month because he hasn't received our "payment."

This is another of the crucial aspects of the substitutionary atonement theory that is problematic, I think, and I was wondering what you make of it.

Posters from other persuasions are welcome to weigh in, of course.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Actually there have been clear variations on this theme since the beginning of the restoration. There has been a definite ebb and flow of emphasis, I grant, but to assume that grace is a new thing in Mormonism is to miss the entire history of thought on the subject.

I am sure you are right about this, LOAP.

And I am equally sure that you are aware that different atonement theories appear in the New Testament, as well; at least three, if I remember correctly.

My personal experience is that different theories have appealed to me at different times.

The interesting thing is that most Bible-believing Christians are not aware that there are actually different theories promulgated in the scripture.

I appreciate your bringing this into the light.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi Billy,

I am not arguing that both must pay the punishment. I am arguing punishing the innocent for someone else's crime is unjust. In other words the correct action would be for the guilty Jon to pay the price for his mistakes. I would admire Jons mother for her devotion and love but I would not clap her in chains for many years in place of her guilty son even if she volunteers. I mean do you see such an action as justified? Do you believe that we should change our legal system such that friends and relatives of the guilty who volunteer can pay the price in place of the criminal?

All the Best,

Uncertain

Precisely.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am sure you are right about this, LOAP.

And I am equally sure that you are aware that different atonement theories appear in the New Testament, as well; at least three, if I remember correctly.

My personal experience is that different theories have appealed to me at different times.

The interesting thing is that most Bible-believing Christians are not aware that there are actually different theories promulgated in the scripture.

I appreciate your bringing this into the light.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Indeed. The scriptures themselves are not univocal on the subject. Part of my thought on the atonement being incomprehensible to us at this time is that I believe the clearest times when the "at-one-ment" are acted out appear in scripture as things unable to be written. For example, when Christ came among the Nephites he prayed with them. The words of that prayer weren't recorded because, according to the book, they couldn't be:

And after this manner do they bear record: The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father; And no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father (3 Nephi 17:16-17; cf. 3 Nephi 26).

As a result we are left with imperfect parables, and different ways to view or understand the atonement.

I echo your question of Billy, and await his response.

Billy:

What is it with God that he can't just forgive when we say we're sorry?

God tells us that we have to forgive when somebody says they're sorry, but somehow this is beyond God himself?

In other words, why is God in the parable so concerned about being "repaid"? It's not like we have anything he needs, or that he is somehow coming up short at the end of the month because he hasn't received our "payment."

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Billy replied...

I was born in the church, seminary, eagle scout, several years at BYU, Mission. But it has been many years since I have gone to the LDS church. I am now an EV Christian.

That is unfortunate. I am sorry you felt weighed down so much by your sins that you felt you needed to opt for a theology that absolves you from ever repenting again. You did not need to leave the Church to find the grace of God.

One of the main points that I try to make on this board is to show that LDS theology and mainstream Christianity are different on almost all aspects from each other.

Would that not stand to reason since "Mainstream Christianity" is apostate from true Christianity. You have been sold a false sense of security...I know, I used to sell it, from another pulpit.

The area of works and repentance is just one more example of these differences.

No doubt

Lately the mantra has been that "Just try your best, and Jesus will do the rest."

Its not a mantra it is the truth...just because you thought you had to work your way into heaven on your on, does not mean that we are trying to go it alone. I know in whom my salvation rests, and upon whom I am completely dependant, and thankfully it is not me. It is Christ

.(http://www.mormonwiki.org/Impossible_gospel)

There is nothing impossible about it...except when those who don't understand it try to define it.

But this is not really what the LDS doctrine teaches,

Billy, you were not paying attention, but don't feel bad a lot of people don't

It is more a reach for perfection and to keep ALL the commandments, as noted in the ensign 2006 "When we deny ourselves â??of all ungodliness,â? then and only â??then is his grace sufficientâ? for us.

Billy, stop this and come home.

[Uncertain]

In some respects, our justice system is already set up this way.

If i owe the government money, for example, they don't care if i pay it or if my parents pay it-just as long as it get's paid. The whole credit industry is an example of the 'we don't care who's money it is' form of reasoning, and anyone who has ever used credit has shown by their actions that they also see it as a fair system.

It really depends on what kind of 'punishment' one is thinking of. There are forms of justice that can be fulfilled equally well by someone who did not incure the debt themselves. There are ways to give both mercy and serve justice.

Hi bluebell,

You make a good point I do think some debts are such that it does not matter who pays only that they get payed. Cases such as your examples in which a fine is not a form of punishment but simply a debt incurred I think fit the bill. But all crimes are not this way as I am trying to demonstrate with my example. There are many crimes in which it would seem unjust to punish an innocent in place of the guilty. In addition not all monetary debts in our legal system can be paid by just anyone. I myself am familiar with a case in which the judge stipulated the guilty party only could pay the fine this was done for punishment reasons. I will repeat my question to you. Do you believe our current legal system should be reformed such that significant jail time (i.e. years) could be served by innocent friends and family in place of the guilty?

I would also point out that LDS are by no means restricted to the penal system model as has been pointed out by lifeonaplate.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

As a former LDS, now EV Christian, I would like to ask you your opinion about one aspect of the parable that is usually just taken for granted--What is it with God that he can't just forgive when we say we're sorry?

God tells us that we have to forgive when somebody says they're sorry, but somehow this is beyond God himself?

In other words, why is God in the parable so concerned about being "repaid"? It's not like we have anything he needs, or that he is somehow coming up short at the end of the month because he hasn't received our "payment."

This is another of the crucial aspects of the substitutionary atonement theory that is problematic, I think, and I was wondering what you make of it.

The end goal is to be re-admitted into God's presence. We cannot enter that presence until we are clean. Not because God can't forgive us, but because it is literally impossible for us to endure His presence if we are unclean. The mediation of Jesus allows us to eventually become clean on terms that are difficult but that we can fulfill.

It's like trying to teach a baby chess. It's not that I can't set up the board and show the baby how the pieces move and explain the rules - it's that babies aren't sufficiently developed to understand how to play chess. I have to wait years until the baby ready to understand the rules before I can teach him chess, no matter how much I would like to teach it to him.

[consiglieri]

Precisely.

And yet wasn't it Amulek who responded to this issue by positing that the atonement is "infinite and eternal," recognizing that under their law, which was just, a man could not sacrifice his life for another man condemned to death; and yet somehow God himself could make such a sacrifice which, because it was in some mysterious sense "eternal," could bridge that gap and pay for the sins of another.

It is a beautiful and moving passage in the Book of Mormon, and one which tries nobly to grapple with the issue; but at bottom, while recognizing the difficulty with the theory, is reduced to saying it is a mystery.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

For example, see and please read David L. Paulsen and Cory G. Walker, "Work, Worship, and Grace," (Response to Douglas J. Davies. The Mormon Culture of Salvation: Force, Grace and Glory. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000) FARMS Review 18:2 (2006) pp. 83-177.

Now, Billy, you have the source and are without excuse. Your understanding of LDS thought is not the be-all-end-all of LDS thought.

I have never said that my opinion is an end all etc.. It is not my opinion that matters at all, rather it is the opinion and writings of YOUR church leaders in YOUR own scriptures and officially produced literature that matters. If you go back my quotes were from the D and C, Ensign, and SWK one of your prophets. I find it interesting that on the farms site it has a disclaimer which says, "The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

If you had to choose between Farms information or Church published information, which source would you choose? And which of the two represent official Church doctrine.

[captain-jack]

If you had to choose between Farms information or Church published information, which source would you choose? And which of the two represent official Church doctrine.

I would choose official sources, but I would choose them in full context, not snippets.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have never said that my opinion is an end all etc.. It is not my opinion that matters at all, rather it is the opinion and writings of YOUR church leaders in YOUR own scriptures and officially produced literature that matters. If you go back my quotes were from the D and C, Ensign, and SWK one of your prophets. I find it interesting that on the farms site it has a disclaimer which says, "The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

If you had to choose between Farms information or Church published information, which source would you choose? And which of the two represent official Church doctrine.

The paper to which I linked contains statements and approaches to works and grace in LDS thought from many prophets and leaders of the Church. I again ask you to read it. Doing so is no different than your relying on the anti-Mormon and critical sources you repeatedly reference here.

The FARMS publication contains "Church published information." FARMS serves a different role than traditionally published Church information.

In short, your objection to reading the article confuses me.

[Billy]

Hi Billy,

I am not arguing that both must pay the punishment. I am arguing punishing the innocent for someone else's crime is unjust. In other words the correct action would be for the guilty Jon to pay the price for his mistakes. I would admire Jons mother for her devotion and love but I would not clap her in chains for many years in place of her guilty son even if she volunteers. I mean do you see such an action as justified? Do you believe that we should change our legal system such that friends and relatives of the guilty who volunteer can pay the price in place of the criminal?

But isn't this the whole point of Christ's atonement for us, to die in our place?

OT sacrifices which pointed ultimately to Christ's sacrifice had a similar substitutionary action (but certainly nothing in comparison to the sacrifice of Christ which was done once and for all) for those who had sinned, a perfect unblemished animal was sacrificed for the sins of the people.

"Another sacrifice called the day of atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. The high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering. One of the goats was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:15), while the other goat was released into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22). The sin offering provided forgiveness, while the other goat provided the removal of sin."http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html

[Fly Fisherman]

I was born in the church, seminary, eagle scout, several years at BYU, Mission. But it has been many years since I have gone to the LDS church. I am now an EV Christian.

One of the main points that I try to make on this board is to show that LDS theology and mainstream Christianity are different on almost all apects from each other. The area of works and repentance is just one more example of these differences. Lately the mantra has been that "Just try your best, and Jesus will do the rest." (http://www.mormonwiki.org/Impossible_gospel) But this is not really what the LDS doctrine teaches, it is more a reach for perfection and to keep ALL the commandments, as noted in the ensign 2006 "When we deny ourselves â??of all ungodliness,â? then and only â??then is his grace sufficientâ? for us.

I don't have time to expound more on this, but the context of the phrases "deny ourselves of all ungodliness" and "then is his grace sufficient" is perfection and sanctification, not just salvation. Read the full scriptures in Moroni 10:32-33. It appears to me that in Mormon doctrine, grace has multiple "levels" (for lack of a better word.) Being saved, sanctified and perfected come by grace, each with their own level of obedience required. I believe the EV concept of being saved and the grace that is required for it is taught in the Book of Mormon (see the experiences of Alma, King Lamoni, etc which are similar to Paul). Consiglieri has spoken on this. But progressing further to perfection and sanctification requires more obedience, as is noted by "deny ourselves of all ungodliness" in those Book of Mormon verses. So, Mormon doctrine isn't different from EV doctrine with grace, it just adds more (perfection and sanctification.)

[consiglieri]

But Billy, you still haven't answered the question as to why God can't just forgive us himself?

Why all the sacrifice? Why all the blood and carnage? Why all the death and destruction?

Only Mormonism has the answer to this, you know.

You will find it nowhere in your evangelical canons and creeds.

[captain-jack]

But isn't this the whole point of Christ's atonement for us, to die in our place?

No, because Christ didn't die from taking our sins upon Him. He was crucified by those who didn't believe Him, which is what ultimately killed Him. I don't think he would have died from taking our sins, otherwise the soldiers would have found Him dead in the Garden of Gethsemane.

[LifeOnaPlate]

But isn't this the whole point of Christ's atonement for us, to die in our place?

And yet, we all still die.

[Billy]

In short, your objection to reading the article confuses me.

It confuses you because I never said that.

But at the end of the day the official doctrine of the church comes from officially sanctioned sources, i.e. the scriptures, and officially published materials. Just like the writings from ECF's, I find it interesting, but not scripture.

[Hoops22]

As a former LDS, now EV Christian, I would like to ask you your opinion

--Consiglieri

Now we're gettin' somewhere!