Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

The article to which I linked you is an overview of LDS thought as found in officially sanctioned sources, i.e. the scriptures, and officially published materials. It even includes a handy appendix on the subjects. Again, please do read.

[consiglieri]

Now we're gettin' somewhere!

The beauty of the English language, like the Atonement itself, is its elasticity and fruitful yielding to a multiplicity of interpretations.

For myself, however, I am a former EV Christian, now Mormon, who shows no signs of learning the error of his ways.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

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

God can do anything he pleases.

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

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us"

Isaiah 53

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Galatians 3

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f]

[captain-jack]

God can do anything he pleases.

If true, then why doesn't he do it? What caused Him to decide not to just do it and forgo the whole mortality thing.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

God can do anything he pleases.

No Billy, he can't. He cannot rob us of our free agency, he cannot force us to heaven, and he cannot hate us for we are his children. He could not forgive us without a sacrifice of blood, that of his Son. This is where "mainstream Christianity" has gone apostate.

[LeSellers]

No, because Christ didn't die from taking our sins upon Him.

I disagree. The Atonement is/was a (series of?) Priesthood ordinance(s). He did not die from the crucifixion, He died when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." No pagan hand could make that sacrificeâ??it had to be by the hand of the High Priest.

The Jewish High Priest, even though apostate, had a hand in it, but holding only the Aaronic Priesthood, they could not do it, even had the Romans allowed it. This was a Melchizedek ordinance.

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.

The Garden of Gethsemane, horrible as it was, was not sufficient to make the Atonement. It also took the humiliation and agony of Golgotha. He had to descend below all things in order to rise above all things.

Further, I believe that the Jews (representing the covenant people) and the Romans (representing the rest of the world) had to be involved. Even though they could not make the Sacrifice, they had to participate in the offering for its effects to be universal. Alternatively (or additionally), their presence was symbolic of all nations, covenant and gentile, having claim on the Atonement, through repentance (as when the thief and the legionary "confessed" His Lordship).

It is still proper to say the Jews killed Jesus Christ, even though they drove not a single nail, or that the Romans did, though Jesus died on His own schedule. But the scriptures make it clear that His death was at His own word.

Lehi

[captain-jack]

I disagree. The Atonement is/was a (series of?) Priesthood ordinance(s). He did not die from the crucifixion, He died when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." No pagan hand could make that sacrificeâ??it had to be by the hand of the High Priest.

The Jewish High Priest, even though apostate, had a hand in it, but holding only the Aaronic Priesthood, they could not do it, even had the Romans allowed it. This was a Melchizedek ordinance.

The Garden of Gethsemane, horrible as it was, was not sufficient to make the Atonement. It also took the humiliation and agony of Golgotha. He had to descend below all things in order to rise above all things.

Further, I believe that the Jews (representing the covenant people) and the Romans (representing the rest of the world) had to be involved. Even though they could not make the Sacrifice, they had to participate in the offering for its effects to be universal. Alternatively (or additionally), their presence was symbolic of all nations, covenant and gentile, having claim on the Atonement, through repentance (as when the thief and the legionary "confessed" His Lordship).

It is still proper to say the Jews killed Jesus Christ, even though they drove not a single nail, or that the Romans did, though Jesus died on His own schedule. But the scriptures make it clear that His death was at His own word.

Lehi

I agree that it was ultimately His choice, and that the Jews and Romans had a part to play, but it was done for reasons, such as the ones you explained. But I think you may have misread me, I think you do agree that taking our sins upon him did not kill him.

However, I do believe that because Christ had a body He was still subject to some laws of our world. He let the Jews and Romans do what they did, because He did not heal Himself. But I also feel that I know so little of the subject that there are forces/laws/reasons unseen to me to really comprehend it. So I'll not comment further on these evnts.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In short, consig, some may regard any criticism of the parable as being inappropriate, since Pres. Packer is an apostle. Apostles aren't scientists or theologians, though they can be. They are apostles above all. Pres. Packer has given a tool, consider it like a nice spoon, in order to help us understand the atonement. He didn't give us a knife. People ought to keep in mind that a spoon and knife are different in that they serve different purposes.

[Calm]

I have not read the rest of the thread yet so perhaps someone has already expressed these thoughts, sorry for the repetition if so and no need to respond if one is already given.

I have several issues with the parable, more for what people have tended to read into it though than what it actually says. IOW, I think it could have been written better to allow for less confusion but other than that I don't think it's a significant problem.

One part I do dislike greatly though is this "It will not be easy, but it will be possible."

Christ specifically says in the scriptures that his yoke is easy.

Matt 11:28

[LifeOnaPlate]

An astute observation, Cal. It seems the yoke is easy, though some pulling is still required. Either way, though, the yoke is said to be easy. Ah, the limits of parables!

[Calm]

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.

I think this is very important--remember it's a parable and will not explain all the nuances of the real thing, sometimes not even some of the most obvious points. It is meant to help you look at something familiar in a new way, not IMO meant for you to stop thinking about it as if all your questions had been answered.

[Jason]

The yoke is easier than trying to do it by yourselves, but it's still a yoke and a burden.

[Calm]

The yoke is easier than trying to do it by yourselves, but it's still a yoke and a burden.

But that is not what Christ said. He said the yoke WAS easy, not "easier".

And I can state that in my own life, "easy" is the best way to describe the experience.

There are many "burdens" that are a joy to carry and actually make the 'work' of living less harsh and heavy when 'carrying' them than when the burden is absent from your arms.

[Billy]

If true, then why doesn't he do it? What caused Him to decide not to just do it and forgo the whole mortality thing.

I think it is a balance between justice and mercy. If he left sin unpunished there would be no justice. So by giving his life for us he satisfies justice and at the same time shows his love for us.

[groove]

I know I am getting here a little late, but I would just like to second LOAP's recommendation to check out Geoff's blog post which describes some of the basics of various atonement theories before diving into a discussion like this. I would also agree with the notion that contrary to certain assertions, atonement theory -- like much theology in the LDS faith -- has not been systematized. Parables are not meant to provide a complete exposition of doctrine, and are by their very nature, subject to the limitations of their narrative. They are intended to distill complicated topics to a basic level, and there is nothing wrong with discussing their limitations.

From an LDS point of view, in addition to what LOAP already mentioned about the lack of prevenient grace (and original sin), another weakness seems to be the arbitrary business transaction nature of the arrangement. First, in the parable, the businessman is operating based on arbitrary rules of debt and repayment. In other words, there is no overrriding reason other than those arbitrary rules why he could not be merciful and just forgive the debt, and the suffering itself does not appear justified. In our LDS faith, it is apparent that God operates based on fixed laws of the cosmos which apparently were not and could not be created (ref. for example scriptures which state God would cease to be God were he to do such and such...). Thus, while God is our judge, he is not an arbitrary judge, and our fate is not an arbitrary fate, and God could not be who he is and violate those laws to allow uncleanliness into his presence. By the same token, as another poster alluded to earlier, we physically cannot enter his presence without some sort of transformative action. At the same timne, God is not required to draw us into his presence, but chooses to do so because of his love for us. Further, we are taught that those entering into the highest kingdom are "just men, made perfect" through Jesus Christ, our being set right before God, not only involves some sort of debt restitution but a transformative action which is not entirely under our control.

Next, in the parable, justice serves the creditor at the expense of the debtor, however, it is unclear what the creditor actually obtains. In the parable it is money and potentially the satisfaction of placing a bad debtor in jail. To me, it is unclear how this translates into eternal principles of salvation. What sort of eternal "currency" are we talking about?

This is an interesting topic, and I hope we can see some more good comments and keep the vitriol to a minimum.

[Billy]

No Billy, he can't. He cannot rob us of our free agency, he cannot force us to heaven, and he cannot hate us for we are his children. He could not forgive us without a sacrifice of blood, that of his Son. This is where "mainstream Christianity" has gone apostate.

You are obviously not a Calvinist

What about Jacob and Esau?

Romans 9: 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

[Jason]

But that is not what Christ said. He said the yoke WAS easy, not "easier".

An easy yoke is easier than a hard yoke. But it still requires work.

A light burden is lighter than heavy burdens, but it's still a burden. It still requires effort.

Jesus also tells us to take up our cross and follow him. Is carrying a cross easy or light? It might well be easier or lighter than other things, but it's still hard work.

[Calm]

An easy yoke is easier than a hard yoke. But it still requires work.

A light burden is lighter than heavy burdens, but it's still a burden. It still requires effort.

Jesus also tells us to take up our cross and follow him. Is carrying a cross easy or light? It might well be easier or lighter than other things, but it's still hard work.

I don't disagree with you, I am merely pointing out where the parable contradicts the scripture.

[Lightbearer]

Thanks for reprinting the entirety of the parable, LB.

You are quite welcome, I figured that if we were going to discuss the parable in question that it would be wise to put it before all so that they may comment on it as it stands rather than depend on our memories.

Something that had escaped me is this--how is it mercy when the Mediator pays the debt, but still demands the debt be repaid to him? Isn't that just another form of justice?

It really depends on your definition of mercy. Is mercy just an excuse to rob justice? Actually I have always viewed mercy and justice as two eternal laws neither of which God can ignore any more than we can.

Would mercy not consist of the Mediator loving the person enough to pay the debt without asking anything in return?

To what end? What is the purpose of the atonement? Just to help a select group cheat the penalty of the demands of justice? Or is there a higher purpose? Our goal is eternal life, to become as God is, how could that be unless we became holy as He is holy? So while the atonement cleanses us from repented sins it also has another purpose it has a refining purpose where we can learn how to be God's ourselves (as Joseph said in the KFD) and learn to bless our children. I have begun to understand this a little better after having become a parent. I know that while I love my son and would give me life for him, I would not shield him from the consequences of his mistakes, if I did he would learn nothing. In fact if he was never punished for misdeeds he would probably grow up to be a sociopath and think that he can do whatever he wants. But after I administer punishment I show forth more love so that he does not think I am an his enemy. I also require him to apologize (or repent so to speak) of those things he has done wrong. I think that the following is applicable:

(Hebrews 5:8-9) "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Why is this obedience so important? Is it an attribute of God? Why does it say we must obey him? I agree that the atonement is often a hard thing to grasp, the whys and wherefores are not always apparent. However the Book of Mormon teaches the delicate balance between mercy and justice:

(Alma 42:13-31) "Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory 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. And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence. And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also. Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul. Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man. Now, if there was no law givenâ??if a man murdered he should dieâ??would he be afraid he would die if he should murder? And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin. And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature? But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice. For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved. What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery. Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance. O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility. And now, O my son, ye are called of God to preach the word unto this people. And now, my son, go thy way, declare the word with truth and soberness, that thou mayest bring souls unto repentance, that the great plan of mercy may have claim upon them. And may God grant unto you even according to my words. Amen."

The atonement is not so we can be excused from being holy, but so that it will be possible for us to become holy.

[Jason]

I don't disagree with you, I am merely pointing out where the parable contradicts the scripture.

I disagree that the parable contradicts scripture. A burden can be easy in comparison to a much heavier burden but still be hard work.

In the parable the Mediator says that his terms will not be easy, but they are far easier than the terms the debtor could not meet. They are at least possible, and when compared to the original terms, they are easy.

[Calm]

I disagree that the parable contradicts scripture. A burden can be easy in comparison to a much heavier burden but still be hard work.

In the parable the Mediator says that his terms will not be easy, but they are far easier than the terms the debtor could not meet. They are at least possible, and when compared to the original terms, they are easy.

I have made the 'point' I wanted to make. I don't feel any great need for others to agree with it. They should be able to interpret the scriptures in the way most meaningful to them just as I do.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You are obviously not a Calvinist

What about Jacob and Esau?

Romans 9: 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

First, I am most certainly not a Calvinist, as John Calvin was a heretic and a fool. The idea that a loving God has already decided who is saved and who is damned and there is nothing that you can do to change that is repulsive on so many levels; my vocabulary cannot even address it.

Second, What God hated was the fact that Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Hate in this case would be better translated "disfavor". You know "Hate the sin, love the sinner".

papa it is possibleto disagree with Calvin without calling names. would you like people calling joseph smith a heretic and a fool? please be careful ~hermes

[katherine the great]

The Parable of the Bicycle is better.

Much better.

[groove]

I know that while I love my son and would give me life for him, I would not shield him from the consequences of his mistakes, if I did he would learn nothing.

Not trying to be trite or anything, but the difference here, of course, is that eternal punishment (or consequences of sin if you want) aren't set up as "learning opportunities" like getting grounded or flunking a class or even getting tossed in prison for stealing. In the final calculus, without the atonement, they represent a final state of total separation from God. There ain't no comming back from that one. IMO and as LOAP pointed out this prevenient grace aspect of atonement is somewhat missing from Elder Packer's parable.

I would also just add that I am currently a big fan of Blake Ostler's compassion theory of atonement. It is certainly a somewhat different take on atonement theory, and I am certainly not wedded to it. However, it strikes a good chord with me, and seems to be a good fit in the sense that it appears to fall in character with the type of God described by our scriptures and our leaders. I'm not sure if there are any links to good web explanations of this version of things.

[bluebell]

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

No, i don't think our justice system should adopted such a practice.

However, my point was that, this is only an issue if the 'debt' is a form of punishment. That means that it's only unjust for the Savior to have paid our 'debt' if we are getting out of some kind of punishment that we deserved by Him doing that.

If, instead of Him taking our punishment upon Him, He is paying a fine we don't have the money to pay, then it IS just for Him to do so.

LIke others have said (and you pointed out)-this is just one way to apply the Atonement and it's certainly not the only angle to study it from, nor is it a complete understanding in and of itself, but if your points are a concern for you in understanding the Atonement, then i thought it would be important to suggest that you might be applying it in a way that it doesn't necessarily have to be applied.